farmers fighting poverty -

Farmers Fighting Poverty -

The strength of being organised Activity report 2007 - 2010

Arnhem, The Netherlands, July 2011 © Agriterra

Data AgriStudies™ Title : Farmers Fighting Poverty - The strength of being organised Publisher : Agriterra Number AgriStudies : 6_53000 Country : World Category : Increasing the support base

Agriterra

P.O. Box 158

6800 AD Arnhem

Willemsplein 42

The Netherlands

T +31 26 44 55 445

F +31 26 44 55 978

[email protected]

www.agriterra.org

Rabobank Arnhem: 15 52 97 163

Foundation Agriterra Chamber of Commerce 41 048542 Member of AgriCord

CONTENTS

PROLOGUE ..................................................................................... 1

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 5

I ACHIEVEMENTS ............................................................................. 7 1 THE AMBITION OF THE PROGRAMME ...................................................................... 7 2 STRENGTHENING FARMERS’ ORGANISATIONS ........................................................... 8 3 IMPACT .................................................................................................... 17 4 REACHING THE GRASSROOTS – A TOUGH CHALLENGE ................................................ 24

II ADVISORY SERVICES ..................................................................... 31 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 31 2 THE FARMERS’ ORGANISATIONS ........................................................................ 31 3 MISSIONS IN 2007-2010 .............................................................................. 33 4 ADVISORY SERVICES ..................................................................................... 37 5 BUILDING BRIDGES ...................................................................................... 43

III PROJECTS: THE BUILDING BLOCKS .................................................... 53 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 53 2 APPROACHES .............................................................................................. 53 3 SYNTHESIS OF WORK AREAS ............................................................................ 61

IV FFP: FUNDING & EXPENDITURE ....................................................... 71 1 FUNDING .................................................................................................. 71 2 EXPENDITURES ........................................................................................... 73

V CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................. 77

EXAMPLES OF PROJECT RESULTS, SPECIAL SERVICES REPORTS AND STORIES ........ 81

SUPPLEMENTS AND ANNEXES ............................................................... 83 SUPPLEMENT AGRITERRA IN 2010: ...................................................................... 85 I THE YEAR PLAN REVIEWED .............................................................................. 85 II QUALITY AND SATISFACTION SURVEYS ................................................................ 89 ANNEX 1 COMPLETE MONITORING PROTOCOL TABLES ON FFP PROJECTS ............................ 93 ANNEX 1B EXPLANATION OF TABLES IN MONITORING PROTOCOL ................................... 103 ANNEX 2 PROJECTS 2007 - 2010 ..................................................................... 105 ANNEX 2B FINDING PROJECTS ON AGRO-INFO.NET ................................................... 119 ANNEX 3 OVERVIEW OF ORGANISATIONS (CLIENTS) IN 2007-2010 .............................. 121 ANNEX 4 COMPOSITION OF AGRICORD’S GENERAL ASSEMBLY, BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND PROJECT COMMITTEE ..................................................................................... 127 ANNEX 4B ACTIVITIES OF AGRICORD’S GENERAL ASSEMBLY, BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND PROJECT COMMITTEE ................................................................................................ 129 ANNEX 5 WORK AREA MANAGERS ....................................................................... 131 ANNEX 6 BUDGETARY IMPORTANCE AND TARGETS PER WORK AREA ................................. 133 ANNEX 7 LIST OF PROFILED ORGANISATIONS ......................................................... 139 ANNEX 7B EXPLANATION OF LEADING INDICATORS OF THE PROFILING ............................. 140 ANNEX 8 OVERVIEW STORY HARVESTING 2007 - 2010 ............................................ 145 ANNEX 9 EVALUATIONS BY YEAR AND AGRI-AGENCY .................................................. 163 ANNEX 10 OVERVIEW OF AGRI-AGENCIES AND ASSOCIATED MEMBERS OF AGRICORD ........... 167 ANNEX 11 OVERVIEW OF TABLES AND CHARTS ........................................................ 175

1

Prologue

In 2010, an interesting publication was released in the Netherlands. Binnenste Buiten1 (Inside Out) compiled the opinions and experiences from Dutch development community. The moment was well-chosen, because only a few months earlier a report by the Scientific Council for Government Policy (Dutch acronym: WRR) had tackled some hot issues. One issue that stood out was the relative importance of investment in ‘social sectors’ (education, healthcare) versus efforts to promote economic development. Another issue that sadly did not receive much attention, was the debate about the choice of funding channels in development cooperation: how do bilateral, multilateral and ‘civil lateral’ aid relate to each other? How do they perform? This question was not really tackled in the WRR report, but fortunately the presentation of Binnenste Buiten did not leave it out. In his prologue, former Prime Minister Ruud Lubbers writes: “Let me be bold. Perhaps it is time to gradually end bilateral development cooperation, that is: from government to government. Instead, I would want to support more firmly the efforts of private enterprise (…). The same goes, as far as I am concerned, for private development agencies.” When reading these words, the feeling that arose was ‘about time’! Finally our lobby to let civil society give shape to development cooperation seemed to have effect. AgriCord committed itself to strengthen membership-based organisations (farmers’ unions, cooperative societies). This commitment stems from the conviction that development cooperation should be done by the organisations whose constituency is formed by the people whom it is all about. These organisations know what the needs are from their members in order for them to build a better live and fight poverty. They should get a platform to voice these needs, be it in the form of a proposal for support or at the table with governments. Recently, Frans van Hoof2 compiled a study3 on farmers dynamics in Congo and summarizes the call of farm leaders to the politicians in his book as follows: “Before you start to make plans for rural development, please come and witness what we have already undertaken, listen to our experiences and ideas and support the initiatives that we have taken instead of by-passing these with temporary actions that disturb and die ingloriously at the end of project implementation.” It supports the conviction that investing directly in the organisations that know what is needed, is more effective than to bilaterally fund some Rural Development Programme by a Ministry of Agriculture that consults ‘the farmers’ just before the programme takes off. That is our argument to moderate the bilateral channel and increase the aid to representative institutions that are embedded in civil society. Our argument is not only theory, but also increasingly evidence-based, as this report will show. The need for farmers to unite in strong cooperative societies and the importance to strengthen these organisations in order for them to give direction to rural development is becoming widely recognised. The World Bank4, the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)5, and also influential people like Olivier de Schutter (the United Nations special reporter on the right to food) promote this.

1 Global Village Media at the initiative of Partos, May 2010 2 former Agriterra head of advisory services and now independent consultant AFAFO 3 Changer l’agriculture congolaise en faveur des familles paysannes. Des dynamiques paysannes dans les differentes provinces de la RDC. Frans van Hoof, 2011 Alliance AgriCongo. 4 World Development Report, 2008 5 Rural Poverty Report, 2011

2 Farmers Fighting Poverty - The strength of being organised

In some cases the action was even suited to the word. We highlight the case of IFAD that for several consecutive years holds the World Farmers Forum. IFAD endorses the Farmers Fighting Poverty approach - supporting farmers’ organisations that in turn help their members escape from poverty. It says there is a pressing need to strengthen the collective capabilities of rural people: “Membership-based organisations have a key role to play in helping rural people reduce risk, learn new techniques and skills, manage individual and collective assets, and market their produce. They also negotiate the interests of people in their interactions with the private sector or government, and can help to hold them accountable. Many organisations […] represent the interests of poor rural people better than any outside party can. They need strengthening to become more effective, and more space needs to be made for them to influence policy.” And IFAD and World Bank have joined hands with AgriCord in order to assess the practices regarding cooperation with those organisations in a systematic way: both by the elaboration of an extensive comparative portfolio of projects (with the World Bank, IFAD, the FAO and IFPRI) as by the realisation of joint impact evaluation studies of the cooperation between IFAD and farmers’ organisations in selected countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. This would not be done if producer organisations were considered irrelevant. Paradoxically, at the Dutch level, where producer organisations receive much positive attention, we would have liked to be far ahead of this international coalition by demonstrating in unambiguous figures that in fact more funds are transferred to farmers’ organisations. So, how does all this positive discourse and action translate into the funding practice? Sadly, not very visibly. It does not express itself in perspectives on larger budgets for the agri-agencies to do what they do best: strengthen producer organisations and build their economic and advocacy capacity. Instead of steep budget growth enabling AgriCord to respond to the increasing demand from farmers’ organisations, the funding is facing stability. Though in comparison to other sectors agriculture seems to be better off, the available budgets are still in large contrast with the G8+ pledges made in L’Aquila in 2008. This could be better accepted when it was matched by increasing direct support from governments and multilateral institutions to farmers’ organisations, However, bilateral aid still represents the lion’s share (70%) of the OECD development cooperation budget (ODA), leaving some 2% for so-called ‘civi-lateral’ cooperation. And within that percentage, the share that goes directly to membership-based organisations is modest. In other words, at the macro-level little has changed. We have been very critical about that, especially after the L’Aquila promise of the heads of state to invest 20 billion dollar in agriculture development and food security in developing countries. However, we do hope that the growing (verbal) attention for farmers’ organisations will start to have an effect soon. It should result in more possibilities for farmers’ organisations to match contributions of the agri-agencies with funds from other donors. The aforementioned IFAD-World Bank-AgriCord inventory could set the baseline and from where on we witness growing financial support for farmers’ organisations from multilaterals and governments. With this changing perspective, the role of the agri-agencies changes, diminishing its role as grant supplier and increasing its role as knowledge, and maybe investment, broker.

3

The experiences in the first phase of Farmers Fighting Poverty that has now come to an end are highlighted and analysed in this report. They form the basis for a new phase of Farmers Fighting Poverty. The report provides evidence of the progress made by farmers’ organisation, both in number of members, as well as internal strength and external performance. Agriculture is high on the development cooperation agenda and the fact that farmers’ organisations are important actors in the fight against poverty is being recognised more and more. AgriCord and the agri-agencies are proud to have been front runners in supporting farmers’ organisations and we will continue to facilitate the long-term relations between peer farmers’ organisations in the world. Kees Blokland managing director Agriterra

Sifting grain – India

5

Introduction

The Farmers Fighting Poverty programme has reached the end of its first term. This report therefore not only covers the activities and results of 2010, but provides an overview of all achievements throughout the programme. The report aims to give a thorough picture of what we have done in order to strengthen farmers’ organisations between 2007 and 2010. As in last year’s report we put emphasis on achievements, and start from there. After that the activities (advisory services and projects) and inputs (financial means) will be discussed. We do not stop at giving just the figures, but try to look beyond that to explain the impact of our interventions. The impact really becomes clear at the personal level of the stories harvested among the participants in the programme: an impressive number of 4.589.643 people. Some stories are taken up in the report, as well as examples of project reports, excerpts of descriptive profilings and special services reports, to exemplify the figures that are presented. We recommend to also consult the AgriCord activity report 2010 and Evidence on Impact 2011. The first provides more detail on the basic aspects of the programme, such as which projects were implemented in which work area. The second document elaborates on the issue of the evidence gathered from stories and evaluations on the impact of our work.

7 Achievements

I Achievements

1 The ambition of the programme

Strengthened farmers’ organisations are at the core of our work. The agri-agencies want to support farmers’ organisations in becoming strong, representative and democratic membership-based organisations. The agencies are convinced that such organisations have an important role to play in economic development, democratisation and income distribution. This is at the core of our theory of change: active and strong rural membership-based organisations are vital in the development of their countries. The agri-agencies are there to help them increase their strength and capacity. PROFILING FUCOPRI (Niger) Overall, the Federation of Rice Cooperatives in Niger (FUCOPRI, created in 1996 and with some 20.000 members) had a strengthening score of 13% from 2007-2009.

The so-called spider map shows that much work still has to be done, but significant successes were reached. For instance, FUCOPRI has become a really professional organisation over the past years: from 2009 onwards more competent staff has been employed, many internal documents and regulations (procedure manuals, job descriptions) have been formalised and the functional separation between the board and the operational staff has been completed (in many farmers’ organisations in developing countries, this separation is a big problem), much improving the style and quality of leadership.

Perhaps because of this professionalization, FUCOPRI also gets better at representing the interests of it members. In 2009, it contributed to a successful revision of the ‘Loi Coopérative’, and it negotiated a fertiliser price reduction, from 17.000 to 13.500 FCFA with the government. The incorporation of women in the management of the organisation is a topic that is still poorly developed. However, FUCOPRI is committed to achieve more gender equality: they recruited a gender specialist who works especially with women who parboil rice, in order to include them in the rice value chain. Moreover during the General Assembly of October 2010 it has been decided that rice producers outside the irrigation schemes (for example producers of rain-fed rice), and parboilers (who are frequently women), are now eligible for FUCOPRI membership. Before that, only rice growers of the formerly state-owned irrigation schemes could adhere. As a

result, FUCOPRI has been able to open up and grow in its membership. Finally, FUCOPRI is an example to many other organisations, because it found an important way to diversify its income by delivering services. Their score shows this: from 6 to 10%. This is accounted for by provision fees, fertilizer trading, direct paddy rice acquisition and rice packaging.


2 Strengthening farmers’ organisations

A strong farmers’ organisation maintains external relations and is able to (positively) influence these relations. Members are involved in policy- and decision-making and in the activities of the organisation, making the organisation democratically organised. The leaders report to their members about results of the organisation and give them the opportunity to control the organisation and the board. A strong organisation has the capacity to pursue long-term goals. To do so implementation capacity is needed within the organisation. Apart from that agri-agencies and their constituent farmers’ organisations consider it important that an organisation is aware of the role of women and includes gender issues in their activities. All these aspects are brought together in the profiling tool by means of its indicators (a full explanation can be found in Annex 7b). By measuring those aspects we assess the strength of an organisation at a certain point in time. Repeated measurements in subsequent years provide information about the organisation’s development. Agriterra started to profile some of its organisations in 2000. Ever since, repeated measurements have been executed, constructing an increasing information source on the development of the farmers’ organisations. During the Farmers Fighting Poverty programme, four measurements were planned; three have been done and the fourth will take place in 2011. In this chapter we present the evidence collected on our outcome (were organisations actually strengthened?). To measure outcome we use the profiling. This tool, mainly used by Agriterra, measures the strength of organisations on a number of indicators. The relative change in these eight indicators between 2007 and 2009 was as follows: Table 1 Changes in leading indicators: 2007-2009

Relative increase in two years

1. Represen

tation

2. Partici-pation

3. Accounta

bility

4. Strategic potential

5. Professional

Capacity

6. Gender

First six indica-

tors

Income Diversity

Degree of organisation (Represen-

tativity) Africa (20 PO) -0,9% -13,8% 4,5% 1,1% -3,1% 0,2% -1,9% 4,8% 86,7%

Latin America (15 PO)

-0,7% -2,2% 0,7% -3,6% 4,3% 0,3% -0,3& 49,1% -6,8%

Asia (15 PO) 0,5% 5,3% 4,5% 17,3% 0% 7,6% 5% 9,9% 17,8%

Eastern Europe (2 PO)

8,3% 13,0% -3,7% 9,7% -7,7% 1,7% 2,8% 87,6% 47,2%

All regions (52 PO)

1,2% -3,6% 2,5% 3,9% -0,4% 2,3% 0,7% 23,3% 37,4%

Source: profiling (M&E department Agriterra) The aggregate profiling figures show a picture that is very positive on the two exclusively factual indicators: Income Diversification (to what degree does the organisation succeed in generating its own income?) and Degree of Organisation (how many of all possible farmers are member of the organisation, i.e. Representativity). The progress on the other six leading indicators is more ambiguous, and in any case lagging behind expectations. In what follows we discuss in more detail the found trends and give numerous examples and interpretations.

9 Achievements

Stronger and weaker organisations Of the 52 organisations for which three consecutive sets of indicators are available (2007, 2008 and 2009), 29 have shown an increase in the average of the six indicators represented in the typical spider map. C-FAP showed the highest relative increase from these 29 organisations. What has happened in C-FAP (formerly CAMFAD) that such big changes could happen? And what do they mean? C-FAP (Cambodia) CFAP has improved most notably in the areas of Participation, Accountability and Strategic Potential. Both the realisation of a (first) General Assembly and the formulation of a strategic plan have contributed to this progress. During a mission of Agriterra’s liaison officer in 2008, a SWOT analysis was executed with the board and staff. The main weaknesses turned out to be: • Weak awareness among members of added

value of CFAP: no clear services rendered that distinguish it from NGOs

• Limited capacity of Board and high dependence on Managing Director

• Limited capacity among staff in cooperative marketing and saving & credits

As a consequence C-FAP adapted its ambitions and decided to put more emphasis on: • Mobilising training services to members • Facilitating access of members to savings and credits • Developing marketing services to members • Organisational development and strengthening through exchanges and study tours

The main goals were to double the number of member organisations (from 16 to 32), increase the number of member households with 50% (from 8.000 to 12.000) and being able to manage activities in a sustainable manner with less dependence on external support (50%). As the graph shows, Income diversification in CFAP is still low but efforts are being made. Thanks to Agriterra mediation, Rabobank has authorised an interest-free loan to C-FAP. Another main challenge that remains is to develop concrete services for members to be of added value.

C-FAP and Agriterra agreed upon the following priorities for support for 2010 – 2013: 1. Improvement of horticulture production and management: the basis for better access to

markets and better pricing are good quality products 2. Improvement of cooperative marketing and access to markets (with support from SNV) 3. Through a more focused youth programme, CFAP aims to develop economic activities

and rural employment 4. Improvement of the membership registration system by including production and

marketing priorities

Some work on these priorities has already been done. One interesting outcome was that 31 model farmers were trained on vegetable farming through an intensive field school and on-site coaching programme. Other households are starting to copy their approach, which is stimulated by arranging of village meetings on the model farms during harvesting time. C-FAP has managed to motivate more than 350 households to improve their vegetables production and this is expected to expand to a few thousand farmers in two or three years.


The six leading indicators

Like last year, the six leading indicators show an overall improvement in representation, accountability, strategic potential and gender (table a). Participation and professional capacity seem to have decreased. Broken down by continent, the best results were to be found in Asia, where an average strengthening of 5% over two years took place. This was mainly the result by a higher score on the strategic potential indicator, for instance by Farmer Nature Network and C-FAP in Cambodia, VNFU in Vietnam and IIMF in India. For FNN the increase in the autonomy was the result of assigning a managing director and the formulation of a strategic plan. VNFU showed a strong increase in training activities for their members. And a large

share of IIMF’s income came from own economic activities and services provided to their members. IIMF is a woman’s only Mutually Aided Thrift and Credit Cooperatives Federation in Andhra Pradesh. The pictures for Africa and Latin America are less positive. For Africa the relative increase in accountability stands out positively (as it did a year ago), but the decrease in participation is notable. Organisations with a big setback in this area are UCA (Uganda), Mviwata (Tanzania), FUPRO (Benin) and TFC (Tanzania). Some possible reasons are that FUPRO for instance has not enough knowledge of its membership base and there are no effective communication systems in place. UCA, Uganda had to face a drastic reduction in the percentage of fee-paying members as well as the elimination of the newsletter. For Latin America, the figure that stands out most is the increase in professional capacity (4,3%). This can be attributed to the women’s organisations in Central America (CMC in Costa Rica and AMMOR in Mexico) but most of all to the Peruvian Council of Coffee Cooperatives (JNC), who greatly increased the quality of their operational plans.

“There was a time when I was about to stop all my activities. Unfair trade by local milk vendors meant I got a poor price for my milk. I felt helpless because I was constantly misled by traders, it was financially very difficult. IIMF's initiative to establish and promote a dairy cooperative was a real turning point. I understood immediately the value of the shareholding. It is our own business so we now get a good price.” Vajramma Botta, member of IIMF (project 5277)

11 Achievements

EXCERPT DESCRIPTIVE PROFILING JNC (Peru)

Según el diagrama la JNC es una organización bastante fortalecida, sobre todo en los aspectos de rendición de cuentas y de representación . Lo más notable es el incremento en capacidad profesional en el año 2009. Este incremento se debe principalmente a que la calidad del Plan Operativo ha sido mejorado substancialmente por la JNC. Lo que no refleja el diagrama es que en los últimos años la organización también ha progresado mucho en potencial estratégico. La JNC ha mostrado ser capaz de posicionarse como un actor primordial del sector, manejando un enfoque integral, concreto y bien trabajado desde la perspectiva de los productores cafetaleros. Además lo ha hecho logrando resultados importantes y tangibles para su membresía. A raíz del bajo indicador de género, desde 2008 la JNC ha trabajado con mayor énfasis en el fortalecimiento del rol de la mujer en la organización así que se espera que este indicador vaya mejorándose en los próximos años. Los ingresos se han diversificado bastante en el último año: la tasa correspondiente aumentó del 18% al 27%, lo cual se debe principalmente al incremente de servicios remunerados prestados a terceras partes. No valid conclusions can be drawn from the figures for Eastern Europe, because only two organisations from that region were profiled. The trend seems that the main variations occur in only one of those two organisations: the Federation of Agricultural Associations in Armenia. Absence of strategic and operational plans explains the low score on professionalism. Participation is high because of the virtually all members pay their fees. PROFILING TUSOCO (Bolivia)

The Community Solidarity Tourism Network of Bolivia (in Spanish “Red Boliviana de Turismo Comunitario) TUSOCO was created in 2006 and has currently 22 affiliated organisations, covering almost 900 individual members. It had a strengthening score of 14% between 2007-2009. The so-called spider map shows that especially the activities on representation and participation were successful and that the indicators for accountability and gender also have increased but are not yet at the same level as the other two.

Agriterra has supported TUSOCO since 2007. TUSOCO is progressing slowly but steadily. They were able to integrate conventional tourism activities in their packages and services and developed a business plan for a commercial wing named “Tusoco Viajes”. The company has been established with the main aim to market the tourism products and services from Tusoco members. The fact that Tusoco Viajes is now part of CBI’s Export Coaching Program is a very positive spin-off of the Agriterra-TUSOCO partnership and offers lots of opportunities to Tusoco Viajes to enter other European markets. In other words: another rural people’s organisation that shows real entrepreneurship! Income Diversification and Degree of Organisation The two exclusively factual indicators: Income Diversification and Degree of Organisation correspond with current thinking in membership organisations strengthening by which these are the indicators to analyse farmers’ organisations:


their size (i.e. membership) and their financial autonomy (which closely resembles our income diversification indicator). Because of this and because of the fact that these indicators are composed of purely factual statements, they seem to tell us the most reliable story about farmers’ organisations. Therefore we will look at them more in depth. Income diversification The Latin American organisations show (see table 1) positive trends on income diversification. However, some explanation is needed. Two organisations had particularly high increase rates: UNORCAC (Ecuador) and UNAG-Chontales (Nicaragua). For UNORCAC this seemed to be caused by some specific income under ‘services’ in the financial statements of which it is debatable whether it is really income from services. For UNAG it is unsure if the change is structural or just a matter of coincidental luck. On the one hand they mediated in the sale of members’ cows to a Venezuelan enterprise, but on the other hand they do promote and participate in the ‘Mercado Campesino’ of Juigalpa which hopefully is a structural change. EVALUATION REPORT The success of the Farmers’ Market in Juigalpa, Nicaragua “For the period under scrutiny, the big increase in total sales is very notorious (more than seven times as much), as is the income growth of the producers. This is indicative of the big impact that the market has had for the participating farmers. (…) Another impact that can be easily ascertained regards the gender dimension, as women have a leading role in the Farmers’ Market. (…) The work of women is becoming more visible as a consequence of the support to this project. (…) Finally, there is an important direct impact at community level, since a supply of low-priced products has been generated for the Juigalpa consumers (…). The Farmers’ Market is a very successful undertaking, in which funding from different sources has been integrated adequately. However, two questions merit closer attention: In the first place, impact seems to have reached a ceiling in terms of the participating farmers (m/f). Some growth options are being analysed (in terms of market surface, days that producers go there etc.) but this would not seem to offer a commercial solution for the total target group. The very project document mentioned the need to generate other commercial alternatives. (…) And secondly, some aspects related to the exact location of the market need to be solved. Evaluación del proyecto UNAG. Jan Smid and Jorge Acosta Soto (pp. 18-19) In Africa, the disappointing observation is that while from 2007 to 2008 a relative increase of almost 22% was achieved in income diversification, the two-year figure from 2007 to 2009 is down to 4,8%. This points to a strong setback in the last year. However, when looking at individual cases it turns out that not every African organisation has trouble generating income. Sydip in Congo and FEPA/B in Burkina Faso have managed to do well. Others have shown extreme reductions, such as Fekritama (Madagascar) and FUPRO in Benin. In Madagascar, both the diversity and the relative size of own income decreased sharply between 2008 and 2009. FUPRO mainly suffered a sharp decline in the income from services. Representativity The rate of organisation or representativity reflects the relationship between the number of individual members and the potential target group. The indicator shows the ability of the farmers’ organisation to attract new members and as such is an indicator of the strength of the organisation.

13 Achievements

The average growth of representativity during 2007-2009 was 37,4%. Table 1 shows the continental distribution. There are almost no Asian organisations losing membership. The aggregate membership growth in Africa is highest, which to some extent is caused by one organisation: the Tanzanian Federation of Cooperatives (TFC). Striking is the negative development in Latin America. The negative percentage indicates a decrease in the number of members, which may be explained by the fact that the organisations started to register their membership more seriously. The numbers they now have are therefore in some cases lower, but also more realistic. See Annex 7 for details. Let’s now take a closer look at the absolute membership figures. Table 2 Membership growth 2007-2008 2007 2008 2009 Total membership (individuals) of 114 farmers’ organisations6

19.611.233 21.382.807 22.073.515

Source: M&E Agriterra The size of the farmers’ organisations has increased with 12,5% the past years. When looking at the composition of these figures, it turns out the average size of the 66 organisations that were profiled is much higher than of other organisations. This coincides with the criterion of relevance as expressed by (probable) size, making the selection of profiled organisations the most relevant for monitoring their strengthening process. In addition, the graph below shows that the profiled organisations are growing; the others are not. Chart 1 Membership growth profiled organisations

Source: M&E Agriterra

6 The 114 clients are the ones for which we have membership figures in our database. 66 of those 114 are the organisations that have been profiled at least once. The attentive reader will note that the 2007 and 2008 figures are much higher than in our Activity Report on 2009, when we reported 8,3 million for 2008 and 6,9 for 2007. This difference is accounted for mainly by the erroneous omission of the membership of the Vietnamese National Farmers’ Union (VNFU), which is close to 10 million.


The overall trend of steady and moderate growth in membership figures hides great differences between individual organisations. The most striking changes can be found in the table below, of which we discuss some examples. Table 3 Membership 2008-2009 Organisation Region Country 2009

members 2008 members

% change

Pakisama Asia Philippines 66.396 20.000 232

UNAG-Chinandega Latin America Nicaragua 5.000 2.390 109

FCMN-NIYA Africa Niger 30.000 22.450 34

TFC Tanzania Africa Tanzania 821.790 475.000 73

NFFM E. Europe Moldova 27.779 28.625 - 3

CIOEC-B Latin America Peru 92.250 103.200 - 11 Source: Agriterra M&E In 2008 and 2009 Pakisama (Philippines) devoted great effort to recover from a deep crisis (a serious internal conflict) that divided and paralysed the organisation for some years. The successful reconciliation process allowed for the rebuilding of confidence among the members. This reconciliation process was supported by Agriterra. Also, the EU-funded project Philippines ‘Farmers for Food’ (executed jointly with Agriterra) strengthened the regional chapters, because coordination staff could be recruited for the implementation of project activities and providing services to the members. The combination of both factors is behind the remarkable rise in membership UNAG-Chinandega (Nicaragua) started in 2008 with a specialist department (Centro de Gestión Empresarial, CEGE) to offer services to their members on how to start bankable undertakings: making a business plan, market studies, identification of retailers and credit institutions. These members are affiliated to local cooperatives, whose services proved to be successful and therefore attracted more farmers. The Tanzanian Cooperative Federation (TFC) saw a strong increase in the number of individual members in several cooperative societies. The number of cooperative societies becoming member of affiliated TFC unions, also increased. In recent years some cooperative societies and unions gained importance as a consequence of the warehouse system, that helps farmers get better prices through improved storage. This made them more attractive to the farmers. Descriptive profiling In addition to the third ‘round’ of quantitative profilings, a series of 30 descriptive profilings was composed: in-depth descriptions of particular organisations, that include (an analysis of) the realised measurements. By using a more or less standard sequence of chapters, they tell the story about an organisation. It is a narrative tool used to describe and assess the farmers’ organisations. Since it is more cumbersome and time-consuming to elaborate than the quantitative profiling, less of them are produced. The case of FEPA/B (Burkina Faso) exemplifies the function of the descriptive profiling as a starting point for discussion between the farmers’ organisation and the agri-agency. In the draft text, Agriterra had concluded that there were three areas that demanded special attention: members’ participation, accountability (for instance, the statutory frequency of General Assemblies was not always realised) and strategic potential, in the sense that the economic activities that are stimulated do not yet contribute to a better economic positioning of the organisation. In short, Agriterra assessed the development of FEPA/B as somewhat stagnant in these respects. FEPA/B however did not agree with some of these findings, indicating that recent

15 Achievements

developments such as the adoption of the PPP (People’s Participation) methodology and CEF (Conseil à l’Exploitation Familiale) already did much to increase participation. The organisation’s opinion was included in the final text of the document, as such doing justice to the ambition of these profiling exercises to generate a debate. Annex 7 lists the 30 organisations of which a descriptive profiling was composed. They can be ordered on www.agro-info.net (search ‘profiling’ in the Documents module). Throughout this report we will be quoting from some of these documents. Conclusions In terms of the six ‘spider map’ indicators the above figures and examples show a relatively stagnant picture. However disappointing it is, this may have to do with the fact that the degree of organisation (representativity) increased at a much higher pace than expected. In last year’s report we hypothesised that fast growth of an organisation might cause problems in other areas that would express themselves in lower or stable values on the other six indicators: “It is for instance easy to understand that with fast increasing membership, as is happening in Africa, a rise in members’ participation and involvement (which is computed as a share of that total membership) becomes more difficult. So, keeping the participation levels constant when membership grows, is already an achievement in itself.” This analysis still appears to be correct. As regards the profiling methodology, a change is in the making. During the past years, Agriterra put much effort in quantifying the profiling dimensions into equations that generate the indicators. Though impressive, the result may have been overly technical. We quote the evaluators of Agriterra’s capacity-building approach who wrote: “The evaluators find that a simplified version would probably help the profiling find more immediate use with the local partner ….”7 Experiences and discussion with Mviwata (Tanzania), Sydip (Congo DR) and Fekritama (Madagascar) lay at the basis of these remarks. AgriCord has seriously taken up the challenge presented in these experiences and feedback and is implementing three lines of action: • Developing a simpler measurement tool • The two ‘hard’ indicators (membership growth and income diversification) will

receive greater weight • Developing a specific profiling tool for business-type farmers’ organisations

(cooperative societies etc.) HARVESTED STORY Projet d’Augmentation de Revenue Agricole et Protection de l’Evironment pour led habitants du district de Gicumbi PARAPEGI - 07imrw-5064 IMPUYAKI – Rwanda Fighting erosion with terraces in Rwanda Gicumbi District in the north of Rwanda is densely populated and the 375,000 people of the district have to farm high on steep slopes subject to erosion. Eight per cent of the population is affected by HIV and AIDs, and 275,000 live below the poverty line. In the face of declining productivity and soil fertility, the IMPUYAKI cooperative supports its members with their multiple farming enterprises. A multi-commodity project has, among other things, promoted the use of terraces as a way of preventing erosion. ‘Radical terraces’ are simply giant steps cut by hand into a steep hillside to create a series of flat, cultivable fields. Humus-containing topsoil is first moved aside before the land is reshaped – by hand – into terraces. The topsoil is then replaced before crops are grown. Agro-forestry was also promoted in this project, with tree seedlings used to stabilize the terraces. Farmers were said to be happy with the land management services – it is too soon to see higher productivity or incomes, although both of these are expected to follow.

7 Evaluation of Agriterra’s support to Capacity Development; Evidence-based case studies. Herman Snelder et al., MDF, June 2010.


Milk cooperation – Kenya

17 Achievements

3 Impact

The ultimate and most important question is whether people’s living conditions really did improve? It is also the most difficult question to answer. On the one hand because the real impact is generally only seen long after a project has ended and on the other hand there is the problem of attribution: which intervention really brought about the change and what is the result of the intervention and what should be attributed to external factors such as the weather or changing political conditions? In our attempt to answer the question of impact as true as possible, we use several criteria to measure the impact of our work. Direct participation in projects is considered an indication that the participants actually benefit and perceive a direct change in their living conditions. That is why we monitor direct participation (outreach) on all intervention levels. Stories, or testimonies, from the field are another way to collect evidence of the impact of our work. And we also conduct in depth evaluations of projects. Outreach The programme performed very well when it comes to the number of people actually participating in the projects. Our original ambition was to have a total outreach (in the four-year period) of 3,2 million people. This goal was already achieved and even exceeded by 2009 (over 4 million). Unfortunately, the growth pattern could not be maintained because of the funding setbacks described elsewhere in this report, but still the final outreach figure amounts to 4.589.643. This development is clearly visible in the graph below. 39% of the participants was female, i.e. almost 1.800.000 women, which is again far above the target of 30%. Chart 2 Overview of outreach 2007-2010

Source: agro-info.net The 4,6 million participants were distributed very unevenly over the 19 work areas (see the table in Annex 6). Work area 4 (institutional development) accounted for 30% of the total outreach. This is primarily caused by the fact that one of the components of the 1000s+ programme in West Africa (that aims to raise the income of a million farmers by 30%) is part of this work area. In view of the magnitude of this project, we dedicate a separate section to it in chapter I.4. On average, each of the 4,6 million participants received (the in-kind equivalent of) € 17 from the programme when looking at how the money was distributed within the projects. Particularly at the lowest levels of association many people were reached, which, together with a relatively smaller share of the funding that went that way, led to an average benefit of almost € 10 on the local level.


Table 4 Expenditure per participant and level of intervention level

participants project amount spent in developing country

average intervention strategy

local 2.906.180 € 28.723.795 € 9,90 Direct poverty reduction

Civil society building

sub-national 911.298 € 19.448.049 € 21,30

national 720.322 € 21.950.960 € 30,50

Lobby regional 48.357 € 2.826.770 € 58,50

international 3.486 € 5.795.298 € 1.662

Total 4.589.643 € 78.744.871 € 17,16

Source: agro-info.net The average expenditure per participant was much lower than the expected € 34,80. In other words, we reached many more people with less money. This is mainly a consequence of the higher number of participants than foreseen and less spending. In itself that is very positive, although some observers say that programme resources have been spread too thinly8.. So almost 80 million was directly transferred to farmers’ organisations in developing countries. To visualize this transfer of resources in impact terms, the funds disbursed in the countries would equal an income increase of 7.3% of 156.000 persons each year of our programme implementation. Intervention strategies We register how the direct project funds (the money the farmers’ organisation can spend) are divided over the intervention levels that can vary from local to international. By doing so we can follow where the money ends up and relate that to the intervention strategies. In these strategies, we assume that spending at the local level (white in table 4) contributes to direct poverty reduction; spending at (sub-) national level (light grey in table 4) to civil society building and spending at regional and international level (dark grey in table 4) to lobby activities. When looking at the figures in table 4 ‘expenditure per participant’ and thus look in depth to how money is spent, we see that the investments to reduce poverty do amount to 35% of all Farmers Fighting Poverty funds. Much of this money was contracted at sub-national and national level. This means that although we did not accomplish our aim to contract more at local level, the mechanism within farmers’ organisations does work as expected and they did find their way to local level and fight poverty directly. Table 5 Relative distribution of expenditure per strategy, 2007-2010

Expenditure per intervention strategy Plan Realised

Direct poverty reduction 54,5% 34,3%

Civil society building 29,1% 49,4%

Lobby 6,3% 10,3%

Administrative costs 10,2% 6,1% Source: Supplement 4 Farmers Fighting Poverty: Background to Impact

8 Mid-term performance audit of Farmers Fighting Poverty. MDF (Ede), 2010.

19 Achievements

Evaluations and stories In the time span of Farmers Fighting Poverty, a great number of evaluations has been carried out. About the Farmers Fighting Poverty programme itself, as well as about specific projects or programmes (co-)funded by an agri-agency. At this moment an impressive number of 170 evaluation reports about projects and programmes in which agri-agencies were involved, have been written. An overview mentioning the countries where evaluations took place, by year and region, follows below. The detailed list of evaluations can be found in Annex 9. Table 6 Evaluations carried out between 2007 and 2011 2007 2008 2009 2007-2010* Total

Africa 5 20 23 38 86

Asia 1 2 8 6 17

Eastern Europe 5 2 1 8

Latin America 1 10 10 23 44

World 1 3 1 10 15

Total 8 40 44 78 170

*The column 2007-2010 refers to all evaluations carried out either on projects in 2010 or on programme and projects with a long-term scope. The FFP performance audits are also included here. Methodological findings In 2010, Agriterra piloted a new kind of project evaluation. In addition to the ‘normal’ approach (hiring experts among the Dutch and international rural constituency), one evaluation9 was done in two steps. First a desk study was done by Agriterra personnel, followed by (in-)validation on site by a non-Agriterra expert. The evaluation was a success; the conclusions were grounded in reality and very relevant for both CNA and Agriterra. But the experiences also learned that division of labour could be somewhat stricter if this approach for it to be more efficient. The first (interim) reports of the field work did not really put the theoretical findings to the test, which was improved in a later phase. In this sense, efficiency can still be gained. The same goes for the focus of the evaluation: intended as a evaluation of two concrete projects, the evaluators (in both phases) have gone beyond those limits and also analysed other results. This has its obvious advantages in that more ground was covered and conclusions were even more relevant because of the added context. At the same time it meant that it required more time to finalise the process, and demanded more working time of the involved personnel. One of the reasons this has happened, coincides with the main conclusion of the evaluation: for many of the project objectives no clear result indicator was formulated. This omission makes it more likely that the scope of the evaluative work is broadened in order to get tangible information, even if it does not pertain directly to the project in question. The problem, in that sense, also may have to do with the type of projects that were evaluated. In a project where there is a very clear focus, it is easier to stick to the project goals. An example in which the focus already was clear comes from Nicaragua10. Here, the evaluators employed a simple but effective tool: they listed all the expected results of two projects for marketing improvements (a ‘Mercado

9 Informe de evaluación experimental de dos proyectos de la CNA (Perú). By Ninoska González and Cees van Rij (Agriterra), and Jorge Acosta Soto (fieldwork) 10 Evaluación del proyecto UNAG-Chontales ‘Fortaleciendo los afiliados de UNAG-Chontales - Fase II’. By Jan Smid and Jorge Acosta Soto


Campesino’, joint seeds banks etc.), and applied an achievement score (from 0 to 100%) to all of them. This made clear from the start what we were talking about. Result findings Many projects dealt with economic initiatives: strengthening organisations so that the conditions can be improved and farmers can get a better income. It is interesting in this regard to compare two approaches. In the Philippines, two projects on organic (rice) production, carried out by the Federation of Free Farmers, were evaluated11. The projects were less successful than expected. While it was not hard to increase the productivity of the participating farmers and lower their average production costs, their incomes (inasmuch as comparisons were possible) did not increase as stably and much as predicted. This turned out to be due to an omission in the project design. The marketing aspect was neglected, thus not ensuring that the increased production would have a reliable market. This shows the importance for producer organisations of establishing (marketing) linkages. EXCERPT DESCRIPTIVE PROFILING Federation of Free Farmers (FFF), Philippines The Federation of Free Farmers (FFF) is a nationwide organisation of farmers in the Philippines that has been active since its inception in 1953. Its membership is composed almost exclusively of small farmers and fishermen. Membership of the organisation requires attendance in a pre-membership seminar, payment of annual fees or subscriptions, and participation in regular activities. FFF has been in the forefront of protecting and promoting farmers´ rights and interests at all levels. Currently, it is recognised among the few credible representatives of farmers in the country, and actively participates in various forums, committees, and decision-making bodies of government agencies involved in agriculture on behalf of its farmer-members. The FFF is also a founding-member and leading proponent of a farmers party (ABA-AKO) which has been able to elect farmer-leader representatives to the Philippine Congress (parliament). The FFF has a mass base of approximately 250.000 individual members organised in 60 provinces nationwide. A project that includes this dimension in its initial design is more likely to succeed. The facts seem to indicate that this is indeed the case: in the 1000s+ programme in West Africa, participating farmers saw their productivity and income grow12, which could be attributed to the fact that their organisations were part of clusters created at the local level. In these clusters, all elements of the chain (input providers, traders and other market outlets, credit institutions) were present and interacted with each other. These clusters were farmer-led. Made possible by the fact that farmers’ organisations (assembled in the West African network ROPPA) played a fundamental role in the choice and design of the separate interventions. In this set up the interests of the primary stakeholder, the farmers’ households, of the programme were protected. In the same line, the project by UNAG-Chontales in Nicaragua was successful because it went beyond mere production targets and included the ‘Mercado Campesino’ from the start.

11 Report on the evaluation of the projects ‘Organic farming network’ and ‘Organic rice production’. By Dan Songco et. al., PinoyMe Inc., Manila, 2011. 12 Local entrepreneurship, agribusiness cluster formation and the development of competitive value chains. Evaluation of the Strategic Alliance for Agricultural Development in Africa (SAADA program) 2006-2009. Fons de Zeeuw et al. (Berenschot)

21 Achievements

But the need for market linkages should not make us forget that these linkages are much less effective if the farmers are not well-organised into cooperatives or other forms of associations of producers. Regarding the presumed dichotomy ‘farmer-led’ vs. ‘market-led’, it is not a question of ‘either-or’ (that is why it is a presumed dichotomy) but of and-and: it is perfectly alright for farmers to be in a value chain, but for them to take full advantage they should play a leading role in the design of that value chain. That is only possible if they are organised. This is well shown in an evaluation by the Swedish agri-agency SCC of three African projects, implemented by the French agri-agencies FERT (a project in Burkina Faso) and Afdi (two projects in Benin). In all three projects, the common factor was that of price and income increase for farmers. As a result of, for instance “the Burkinabé cowpea producers unions’ capacity to organise key farmers to participate in government regulated seed production system. This has increased the income of the farmers involved and also ensured that the broad membership receives certified seed at an affordable price and in time” 13. And in Benin, systems of group marketing of rice and cashew nuts have resulted in increased prices for both commodities.

Cows waiting in line for artificial insemination – Congo, D.R

13 Market Based Agricultural Development through Farmers’ Cooperative Business. Quality Assurance & Control. Mission report Burkina Faso & Benin. Magnus Persson and Ngolia Kimanzu, 26 November 2010.

“We just spent two years with the project, and farmers are already developing the reflex to find buyers before producing - they say, ‘Let’s find the market first,’ ‘Let’s contract,’ ‘Let’s sell it together!’ Before, they just produced and waited for hypothetic buyers. So we can conclude that we are now moving progressively towards value chains.” Togolese farmer, participant in Thousands to Millions programme


HARVESTED STORY Développement de la filière niébé dans la province du Sanmatenga UDPNP – Burkina Faso A farmer’s story - a new life thanks to a new crop, Burkina Faso Mr. Soré Nongma is a producer in the village of Solomnoré in Pissila. He is a member of a cowpea group called Wendlamita. He has four wives and is a father of 13 children. One of his daughters is married and his eldest son went to Côte d'Ivoire. Of the eleven children who still live at home, four are old enough to help with farm work. In 2010, he has grown 4ha of sorghum with cowpea and 3ha of pure cowpea. Sorghum is for family consumption and is never sold, but the cowpea is a cash crop and is the main source of income for the family. Before he began growing cowpeas seven years ago, Mr. Soré could not feed his family or educate his children. He was obliged to sell livestock each year to buy food and his flock never prospered. In addition, he didn’t have the equipment, plough or a donkey, so he cultivated by hand using a local hoe. During one of his trips to Djibo, Mr. Soré discovered the culture of pure cowpea and decided to try it on a small area of 0.25ha; he was the only one in the village doing it. Other producers observed him and were convinced: after a few seasons, they started to do the same. They have all gradually increased their production area of pure cowpea, and Mr. Soré has increased his production area from 0.25 to 3ha over two years. The move towards cowpea started by Mr. Soré was strengthened by the arrival of Cowpea Project 2 and the activities developed by his organisation, the Departmental Union of Producers of Cowpea Pissila (UDPNP) with support of FERT. The group got a sprayer that allows producers to treat cowpeas, which they could not do before. Producers received technical guidance by a facilitator during the project. They learned to sow seed in lines, how to apply mineral and organic fertilizer, improved varieties and how to recognise pests. New techniques are shared better now that Mr. Soré has become a pilot producer: he gets training and transmits it to the members of his group; he also visits their plots and advises other farmers. He records his farming activities and expenditures, analyses the results and presents them to the rest of the group. Since 2009, producers have been storing their harvested cowpeas in a collective storehouse and selling it at a better price. In 2009, the group received three bags of cement to repair the store and in 2010 they got a door, gate and lock to make the building more secure. Mr. Soré now has a new strategy: he sows one part of his fields early to harvest in September when prices are high: in 2009 he sold nine sacks at 33,000 CFA (about 50 euro) and 22 sacks at same price in 2010. A month later, at the peak of harvest, the price had almost halved, to 18,000 CFA. The rest of the harvest (late sowing and local variety) is stored and then sold through the Union (in 2009, a sack was sold at 27,500 CFA – about 42 euro). A part of the money obtained is reinvested in the inputs of the following year. His wives also grow cowpeas (0.25ha each) in addition to peanuts, sorghum and maize. But since cowpea production is more profitable than others, it is an ever more important in their rotation. Since he started the pure cowpea production, Mr. Soré has bought bulls, two ploughs and a donkey, reinvested in field inputs, re-roofed his wives’ houses, paid school fees for his children, maintained their social network and met the needs of his family. His latest purchase is a motorcycle. His flock has grown too, since he is no longer obliged to sell the animals each year to cover the spending. Today, he has 16 goats, 14 sheep as well as poultry on his farm. He has also been able to meet his responsibilities as a tribal chief. He is the newly elected president of his group and wishes to further strengthen the capacities of other members of the group and make every effort to ensure that his group is engine of the Union, so that it can offer more services to the members.

23 Achievements

For many other projects, evaluations were not able to show and discuss actual results. In part, this has to do with the fact that in many projects in which the advocacy component is strong, it is harder to already identify and measure results that demonstrably affect farmers’ lives. But this, in turn, often also has to do with project design. If targets and baselines are not defined right from the start, it will be all the more difficult to assess what actually happened in a project. And why is that definition sometimes deficient? Among other things, the reason is that the farmers’ organisations themselves often lack the tools to name and monitor the information needed. And also the organisations supporting them have to have clear focus in their support. In the cooperation between SNV, Agriterra and selected farmers’ organisations, good progress was made in quite some cases, but in some others much less so because of the lack of clearly stated goals at country level14. Needless to say, if the three involved parties do not state clearly where they want to go, it is hard to be result-oriented and to work to a (common) goal. Two important lessons surfaces as a result from these experiences. In the second phase of Farmers Fighting Poverty (2011-2014) the baseline in the project will be defined, so that a reliable assessment of the change can be made. This is already implemented in the online management system on agro-info.net, where for every measurable project target, a baseline (present situation) has to be entered. On the other hand, the farmers’ organisations will be stimulated in a very specific endeavour: the creation and management of a tailor-made M&E system, suited to their mission and ambitions. Agriterra developed a Solution for this purpose and the Belgian agri-agency CSA underwrites the importance of this point. Impact Story harvesting is a way in which the agri-agencies collect testimonies of participants in projects. Each of these stories shows a trace of impact. In the yearly recurrent report “Evaluation of Impact”, all stories of that year are reviewed, grouped and analysed. They present some of the ways in which the lives of farmers in the developing world have been made significantly less precarious and their organisations have become stronger. During Farmers Fighting Poverty a total number of 200 stories has been collected, 33% more than planned. Reflecting on the broad range of interventions, the selected cases highlight improved livelihoods from the production of crops from cashew nuts to honey, and cowpeas to onions. Many women tell of success. There are signs that farm households are benefiting from more balanced diets as a result of growing different vegetables, and learning better conservation techniques so that produce can be stored over traditional lean periods. Smallholders are getting better yields by switching to crops better suited to a fickle climate. Organic approaches are increasingly proving their worth. And more farmers can access micro-credit financing and markets than at the start of the programme.

14 Auto-Evaluation Report: case study analysis of the “Partners in Support to Producer Organisations” Corporate Partnership Agriterra, SNV & Agri-ProFocus. By Hans Meenink (SNV), May 2011


4 Reaching the grassroots – a tough challenge

One of the main pillars of the Farmers Fighting Poverty programme was the funding of small organisations and local associations that are member of federal structures. The greater part of the activities of the farmers’ organisations was to take place in the regions and villages, with the main goal to reach the people who experience poverty most: at grassroots level. After four years it is time to see what happened in this respect. We gained quite some experience in the past period in the field of “grass-roots participation” (members’ participation). Grass-roots participation includes strengthening of local groups that are organised around economic activities. In the advice and project implementation in this area, farmers’ organisations worked with the following approaches and/or programmes: 1) The “People’s Participation Programme” (PPP), developed by the FAO. This

approach was further developed by Agriterra and adapted to farmers' organisations. Slight variations on this theme are being practiced by UPA DI (the Farmers’ Knowledge Program) en Afdi (the ‘Conseil à l’Exploitation Familiale)

2) The CASE approach ("Competitive Agricultural Systems and Enterprises Approach"). Producers form a cluster together with customers, suppliers of inputs, banks and other's providers and formulate an action plan.

3) Micro-projects carried out by local departments of farmers' organisations. 4) Credit and saving groups. Savings and credit federations improve access to

financial services for its members. 1) People’s Participation Programme

In Farmers Fighting Poverty, the People’s Participation Programme15 (PPP) is briefly described as ‘the formation of local groups to undertake economic initiatives at the local level, as part of the strategy of national farmers' organisations to provide useful services to their members’ (Agriterra, 2006:25). Agriterra has started the PPP programme in West Africa and in China. The implementation of PPP is in a very early stage, but some conclusions can be drawn from activities executed so far16. In China, Agriterra and AEMS agreed to test the PPP-approach as a potential method to reach the objective of the project ‘to accelerate the transformation of FPOs17s into self-reliant, entrepreneurial and independent farmers’ organisations’. One training was given and the participatory character of the PPP-approach was new to most of the participants and was highly appreciated. In Africa both UPA DI and Afdi have been working longer with the PPP-approach as described below. 15 PPP aims at economic development at a local level and as such to direct poverty reduction, the main focus in the Farmers Fighting Poverty policy. PPP is a sustainable approach, as it aims at farmers’ empowerment and self-reliance. Farmers’ organisations are strengthened by PPP as it increases decision making influence and control of people on a local level. And PPP included all elements needed to establish and improve participatory practises within farmers’ organisations. 16 (1) Marjolein Kurk, 2009. Grassroots Participation within Rural People’s Organisations, Current Practises and Lessons Learned. Master Product, Advanced Master International Development; (2) Bram Busstra and Marlon ten Hoonte, 2010. Aggregation results PPP approach in China. Report of a mission within the framework of project 08aem-5269. 17 FPO is a Farmers Production Organisation, which is the Chinese form of Cooperative.

25 Achievements

The Farmers Knowledge Program (TFKP) UPA DI developed the The Farmers Knowledge Program (TFKP) approach that focuses both on capacity strengthening of the membership base and of farmers’ leaders at a higher-level within the farmers’ organisations. This is achieved by training farmers at the grassroots level, by helping them to set up economic projects and by strengthening farm groups and organisations so they can deliver services to their members. TFKP seems to be an effective approach (project 4949). Individual and collective capacities are being strengthened and TFKP is effective in terms of both participation and empowerment. It focuses on capacity-strengthening in different fields: economic, politic, organisational and social. In terms of cost-efficiency, however, there are some weaknesses. It is a very intensive programme with intensive involvement of staff and money. For example, for each local farmer group of 20 persons, one full-time ‘formateur’ is employed.18 In addition to that staff of UPA DI visits the organisations during advice missions and for monitoring purposes several times a year. UPA DI reported an outreach of 24.260 individuals, with an average cost per person of € 17,21. From the farmers’ perspective sustainability and self-reliance are enhanced because of the focus on skills development and information sharing. However, the TFKP groups have little influence within their higher level member union because of their small representation. Regarding sustainability, one can ask the question if an organisation would be able to finance such an approach independent from external donors. Conseil à l’exploitation Familiale (CEF) CEF aims to improve agro-economic systems and managerial capacities of farmers. By improving grassroots participation, Afdi aims to increase local level economic activities, which is the main focus of CEF. There are two types of CEF: individual and collective. In individual CEF, individual farmers are trained and supported. In collective CEF, farmers’ groups are trained as well. Either way, the animateurs are the key persons to express farmers’ voices at higher organisational level. The CEF approach is applied in Burkina Faso with FEPPASI (project 5312) and FEPA/B (5121). CEF turned out to be an effective approach regarding production capacities and income. For example, farmers in Silly (FEPPASI) saw a production increase in maize, sorghum, sesame. Sustainability is enhanced by training in production skills and bookkeeping. Remarkably, within FEPPASI, CEF only affects men. They have more land, and as a result are the ones who benefit most from CEF training (Kurk, 2009; 27). An outreach of 875 at local level and of 8.502 at sub-national level is reported by the organisations. The average spending per person at these two levels is € 20, which is not very high seen the total spending of € 108.999. 2) The CASE approach: from thousands to millions (1000+) With strong involvement of seven national platforms of farmers’ organisations in West Africa and their umbrella organisation ROPPA (Réseau des organisations paysannes et des producteurs agricoles de l'Afrique de l'Ouest), the 1000s+ programme (2007-2010) promoted the widespread introduction of competitive agricultural systems and enterprises (CASE approach) together with the International Fertilizer Development Centre (IFDC), with support by the Dutch government and Agriterra. It did so by

18 In addition to their efforts for the TFKP-program, these formateurs support the staff of the national RPO in other activities as well.


stimulating linkages at the local/regional level between credit institutions, training and extension services, agricultural research and producer organisations. These actors are grouped around a single commodity in so-called ‘agribusiness clusters’ led by the farmers’ organisations. The programme had typical impact-related objectives, such as a 50% increase of agricultural productivity, as well as a 30% increase of the average income of 1 million farmers' families. Main results A year ago, we reported a series results until the end of 2009. In general, these were confirmed (with relative differences of 1 or 2%) by the external evaluation19 of the programme commissioned by the Dutch ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2010. The evaluators concluded that the first impact objectives to reach a 50% average increase in agricultural productivity (production) and reach 30% average income growth for the farmers supported by 1000s+, were met. The critical comment is that this applied to a lower number of farmers than targeted: almost 373.000 by the end of 2009. It was unlikely that 627.000 more households would be reached in 2010 considering (among others) the lack of funding from Agriterra. Table 7 1000+: Households, clusters, groups reached Target 2010 External evaluation

(until end 2009) Number of households reached 1.000.000 372.627 Number of clusters created 300 216 Grass-root groups reached - 6.701 Additional hectares with sustainable land use 1.500.000 400.000 Additional production of cereal equivalents 500.000 2.000.000 Source: External evaluation 1000+ (see footnote) On a scale from 1-10, the evaluation graded the performance of the 1000s+ programme with a 7,5. This figure consists of grades on the four classical evaluation dimensions. The relevance of the program was graded 9, while the other three dimensions (efficiency, effectiveness and impact) received a 7 each. In other words: the CASE concept (agricultural productivity hand-in-hand with marketing perspectives) is great and necessary. The implementation still leaves room for improvement, which mainly concerns the role of the farmers’ organisations in the programme. The plan is that IFDC consults all stakeholders in the transition year (2011) on how to design the next phase. Agriterra has stressed the importance of including the farmers’ organisations: if they do not participate in the design of the programme, they cannot optimally play their role in making the programme a success. 19 Local entrepreneurship, agribusiness cluster formation and the development of competitive value chains. Evaluation of the Strategic Alliance for Agricultural Development in Africa (SAADA program) 2006-2009. Fons de Zeeuw et al. (Berenschot), 2010 (also available in French). The full report is available from Agriterra.

“I have learnt to keep records. It was not easy to structurally register my expenditures and revenues, but the business support services helped me to do so by coming by every week. After a while I had more awareness of my business. While I had thought that I was getting a good price for my rice, it turned out that I was producing at a loss. This was the actual gain of the training. Now I am doing things differently.” Nigerian farmer, participant in Thousands to Millions programme

27 Achievements

3) Micro-projects A micro-project is a project of which the executing organisation works at local level and is a member of a national organisation. An important element is therefore the involvement of a national organisation. Agriterra started the micro-projects with a first pilot in Kenya in which KENFAP participated actively. This was followed by micro-projects in Madagascar where FEKRITAMA took up their role as national body and ACWW that supported micro-projects focussed only on women. The main objective of a micro-project is to start or improve economic initiatives at local level. These economic initiatives should be innovative, sustainable, income-increasing and include an important role for women in the execution. As UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s stated on the International Day of Rural Women 201020: “Rural women do most of the agricultural work in developing countries, but endure the worst working conditions, with low pay and little or no social protection. Rural women produce most of the world’s food, yet they are often excluded from land tenure and the credit and business services they need to prosper.” It is therefore interesting to see that most micro-projects by members of KENFAP and FEKRITAMA are implemented by women. They started income generating projects in bee-keeping, poultry raising, collectively selling their products, breeding and selling zebu’s (together with their husbands) and improving rice production. The women in Madagascar are able to take their responsibility and power into their own hands through the application for funds in micro-projects. This is reflected by the gender indicator that shows a steady rise over the years: from 47% in 2007 to 52% in 2009. The KENFAP women even constituted 67% of the total participation in micro-projects. As a result of the support to farmer groups in developing economic initiatives, we see an increase in membership and in generated income for small farmers in Kenya21. In turn this increased the income of the national organisation through received membership fees. This allowed KENFAP to set up 50 area branches throughout Kenya. Though these initial results are promising, there is need for further improvement. An evaluation of the micro-projects in Kenya in 201022 concluded that many of the businesses that small-scale KENFAP members are engaged in, have not yet reached a critical mass. Although some projects are successful, they are so more by chance than as a result of good planning and support services. Lack of business skills as well as insufficient attention to business and financial planning, contributed to this situation. Moreover there are challenges in the monitoring and evaluation system of micro-projects. No baseline studies were done to ensure that the selected businesses would yield sufficient returns. There is need to plan and evaluate on performance indicators such as productivity, income and profits generated as well as client-satisfaction. There should be shift from project management to business management. The initiatives of ACWW were interesting because they had a focus on income generating activities for women in three countries (Cameroon, Tanzania and India). Besides an increase in income there were also results such as empowerment of women in terms of working collectively, learning new skills and increased confidence. 20 http://www.un.org/en/events/ruralwomenday/ 21 KENFAP micro-projects: evaluation of institutional set-up and project implementation; 18 to 28 November 2008, Kenya. Harm de Vries, José Levelink 22 Report on Rapid Business Assessment of FFP Micro Projects; March- May 2010. Rogier Huijmans


HARVESTED STORY Micro-projects contributing to economic empowerment of women and a women leadership training - 08aw-5260 ACWW - Cameroon Happily ever after

Achuranjoh Comfort, a rural woman living in the Teze community in Cameroon, lived her childhood in extreme poverty. Her family could only afford one meal a day. Achuranjoh went from one house to another to beg for food. She went to primary school only because of financial support given to her family by some patrons. After finishing primary education she was married off to a farmer. In this way her parents received dowry which they used to send her brothers to school. She and her husband have eight children and experienced a lot of difficulties. Many years later she says: “I am very content with my situation at moment.” What happened in the period between the first

years of her marriage and now? What made her satisfied with her situation? Short after her marriage she joined a women’s group in Teze. She was even involved in activities for local women and provided micro loans for members to start their own business. The group received financial support through Associated Country Women of the World (ACWW) from Agriterra to carry out this project. The most effective activities of the project were the trainings and the credit system. Achuranjoh actively participated in the trainings on the production, processing, storage and marketing of palm oil and the training on how to make medicated rubbing oil and soap. She got some money from the group (made available by Agriterra) which enabled her to carry out tablet soap business. And the trainings provided her with good marketing skills and techniques and this enabled her to come out with better quality products, better price negotiation and also access to new markets. Unfortunately, her husband had an accident last summer. This led to a bone fracture and he has become lame. Achuranjoh: “with all these problems faced I have been able to survive financially especially from the income generating activities I am engaged in, thanks to Teze women CIG. I was able to pay my husband’s hospital bills during his accident. The profit from my products also enabled me to provide for my children’s needs. Their school fees, clothing and their nourishment. They are now able to eat twice a day and at times thrice daily. Our living conditions improved a lot. I still assist my parents who are both alive. I know my success has also come from the blessings they gave me. I know very well that if they were financially viable they would have sent me to the highest level of education. At times I regret for not advancing my education up to university, but I know it was the decision of the Almighty and I am very content with my situation at the moment.” 4) Credit and saving groups Both Savings and Credit Cooperatives (SACCO) and Village Savings and Loan Association (VSLA) methodologies are extensively used in the Eastern Africa region and in Asia. They offer financial services to the underserved communities, especially in the rural areas and specifically to women who are often excluded from the available formal financial system.

29 Achievements

Farmers’ organisations can be affiliates of these cooperatives, which allows their members to take out small loans at affordable interest rates enabling them to expand their businesses. For example, in cooperation with the Cooperative Bank of Kenya, a community-based microfinance initiative was set up especially for low-income, small-scale entrepreneurs, including farmers, who would otherwise have difficulties to get a loan. The project encouraged SACCOs to work as financial intermediaries for rural communities. In addition to taking out loans, members were able to build up savings. Especially many women made use of this service. In the case of NEFSCUN (Nepal), both the number of member-SACCO’s (Savings and Credit Cooperatives) and the number of farmers in every member-SACCO grew. The project ‘Micro finance and Micro Enterprise Development for women in the East, Central, Western and Mid-Western Regions of Nepal’ aimed to provide access to the production credit for rural women. There was a large demand for micro-finance services for the implementation of the program among the women members in other areas as well. Therefore NEFSCUN and the SACCOS of other districts replicated the program in other parts of the country. In 2010, NEFSCUN involved an additional 19.570 new micro-finance members. Total savings of all micro-finance members is around € 1.5 million, or an average € 25 per member. Most of the loans are used to improve production and other income generating activities. A small group of micro-finance members was able to start business activities. General conclusion Large numbers of farmers were involved in these activities specifically aimed to reach grass-roots level. It is clear there is much potential entrenched in activities that can be developed with farmers at local level. The agri-agencies will build on the experiences gained in further refining their approaches. When working with groups of farmers, strengthening of production capacity should not be dissociated from marketing and access to capital (a value chain perspective and integrated approach are very important). The farmer-led approach should always be matched with a market-oriented production. Data about farmers’ performance and key indicators should be gathered before starting activities. On the basis of this data or basic business plans, the extent to which the initiative becomes a success will be ensured and enforced. It is also important that farmers have the skills and capabilities to develop economic activities. If they do not, they should first be trained. There are several issues that should be properly considered in the design of the intervention. For an intervention to be successful and sustainable, a critical mass of farmers is needed. A group of 20 farmers is likely to be too small to achieve sustainable interventions. It is recommended to select fewer but larger clusters to increase the economic possibilities, and that can bear the costs of the support and monitoring of groups which is intensive and thus costly.


HARVESTED STORY Micro finance for rural poor women and micro insurance: upscaling services and enhancing growth in Saving and Credit Cooperatives - 09ne-5513 NEFSCUN, Chapagau Saving and Credit Cooperative Society - NEPAL An example of Pramila Rai. She is a 46 years old female farmer, member of the Chapagau Saving and Credit Cooperative Society in Nepal. Her Self Help Group (SHG) takes loans from a saving and credit cooperative (SACCOS) which has 2.000 members, all females. Pramila lived with her husband and four children in a remote district in the Himalayan mountains. In 2000 the family decided to move to the densely populated Kathmandu valley for security reasons. They managed to build up a new life. Thanks to the loans that she could take from SACCOS, the proper technical knowledge of her husband and good financial management, the family has now set up a nice business which provides them with enough resources for a decent life. In 2002 Pramila enrolled in the SACCOS. The SACCOS trained her on the importance of saving, financial literacy and group functioning. After saving for about six months, she took a first loan enabling her to start mushroom cultivation. Her husband had taken some training in this topic. So with the loan of about € 80, they constructed a first plastic tunnel (green house). In a relatively short time they made a profit of about € 400. With a second and third loan and own savings they made more sheds. She invested (loans and savings) about €5000 over the last 8 years in the business. At this moment the family has 13 tunnels, producing about 100 kg of fresh white mushrooms a day. The husband sells the mushrooms at the Kathmandu market. The family has three full time labourers employed. At this stage, the business gives the family a net income of about € 2500 per year. The children study in (private) boarding schools and one daughter is studying at the university. They have bought a piece of own land of about 80 square meter. Both Pramila and her husband are fully engaged in the business. Pramila is very happy with her business and shows that she is proud of it. She has ambitious plans for the future. The limitation at this point is the SACCOS policy that loans may not exceed € 1.600. Otherwise she would take more credit and expand the business even more and faster.

31 Advisory Services

II Advisory Services

1 Introduction

Advisory services are one of the main tools of the agri-agencies to strengthen farmers’ organisations. First (section 2) we will give an impression of the farmers’ organisations worked with. In section 3 we will discuss the facts and figures of the realised advisory (and other) missions, and look more in depth at the results of some missions. these missions, executed by the different types of experts such as farmers (AgriPool experts), consultants, employees of agri-agencies. And finally, section 4 is devoted to the more strategic partnerships between the agencies and other organisations active in the agricultural field. 2 The farmers’ organisations

The variety in the farmers’ organisations the agri-agencies work with is large. Some operate at grassroots level, where farmers’ groups or village farmers' associations work at district level. Others are large federations of farmers operating at sub-national level and national level. At international level these are regional and sometimes even continental platforms such as the Asian Farmers Association for Sustainable Rural Development (AFA). The International Cooperative Alliance (ICA), Via Campesina and IFAP (see II.3) manifested themselves at world level. In most cases these organisations have been accompanied by the agri-agencies in their development for years. The main topics the agri-agencies work on with the farmers’ organisations are developing services to their members in areas such as production, collective marketing, training, seeds production and technical advice. The organisations are also supported in their activities related to lobby and advocacy. The regional emphasis of work of almost all agri-agencies clearly lies on Africa and more specifically Sub-Saharan Africa. FERT and Agriterra on the other hand also support organisations in the Mediterranean area and the Middle East (Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Lebanon, and Palestine Jordan). Most of the organisations SCC works with as part of Farmers Fighting Poverty are based in Latin America. Services and levels of operation Producer organisations can be categorised according to the types of services provided to their members. The main services provided are generally economic services (such as setting up cooperatives or farmer-led businesses) and advocacy services. A combination of these services is also possible within one producer organisation. Producer organisations that operate at local and sub-national level often focus on livelihood and economic services while national and international operating structures mainly focus on advocacy services. The agri-agencies work with producer organisations at all levels and with all services. Some of the agri-agencies are mainly geared towards one particular service such as


SCC and FERT (economic services) while Afdi, Agriterra and Trias encompass all levels and all services. During the Farmers Fighting Poverty period the agri-agencies supported a total of 220 unique farmers’ organisations involved in 570 projects. When we look more in depth at the division over levels of operation and services of the organisations, we see the following picture: Table 8 Number of farmers’ organisations per service provided and agri-agency Services provided by farmers’ organisation

Agri-agency

advocacy services economic services

mixed undefined total

Afdi 4 14 3 21

MTK Finland23 2 2 Agriterra 84 50 5 4 143 FERT 1 4 2 7 SCC 2 9 12 23 Trias 5 5 2 7 19 UPA DI 2 3 5 Total 96 86 7 31 220 Source: agro-info.net The totals in this table show that slightly more attention is given to the organisations providing advocacy services. When we look at the divisions per agri-agency it appears that Agriterra is the only agency who gives more attention to the advocacy organisations. Nonetheless, Agriterra has the desire to work more on economic and business development, which took shape after its reorganisation in 2010/2011. Number of organisations per level of operations

As for the level of operations, the majority of the farmers’ organisations operates at sub-/national level (65%). The division of the organisations over the levels, very much follows the division of spending over the intervention levels of the projects (see IV.2 Expenditure). Source: agro-info.net

The number of organisations the agri-agencies worked with grew from 111 in 2007 to 220 by 2010. As said before, most relations between the agri-agencies and the farmers’ organisations are long-term. However, some relations had to be ended, either because the cooperation was disappointing or because the organisations reached a stage in which they do not need further external support. Ten organisations the agri-agencies supported have developed themselves from an organisation requesting advice, into an organisation offering advice to others, e.g. Voz del Campo, VNFU, FAA and AMRU. A development the agri-agencies very much stimulate.

23 Associate member of AgriCord


3 Missions in 2007-2010

Staff members of agri-agencies, generally from their home countries and in some cases based in the countries of operation, accompany the support to farmers’ organisations. This consists of identifying the needs (training, advice, etc) and of responding adequately to these needs by mobilising the right competences. The advisory support, which consists of a combination of technical advice on the spot, putting the support base into action, mobilisation of competences within the farmers’ organisations (AgriPool) and missions of employees and consultants, characterises the approach of the agri-agencies. We did practically meet our total target of realised missions: 2.314 missions were carried out while 2.338 had been planned. In what follows we will briefly analyze the realised missions in terms of their type and their destination. Missions by type The ambition was to promote the exchange from farmer-to-farmer. Thus the aim was to increase the number of AgriPool experts over the years and decrease the number of employees and consultants. Table 9 Number of persons on mission, 2007-2010 Planned FFP Realisation

2007-2010 percent

Number of AgriPool experts on mission 1.148 618 54% Number of agri-agency staff on mission 236 499 211% Number of consultants on mission 452 239 53% Number of events (visitors) 502 925 184% Number of other (students etc.) - 33 - TOTAL 2.338 2.314 99% Source: annex 1 – Monitoring Protocol The number of AgriPool experts on missions has consistently been the highest during the programme. Only in 2010 this number was exceeded by the number of people participating in events. These participants are virtually always members of farmers’ organisations, which is also the qualification of AgriPoolers. Of the 2.314 participants in missions, 618 were AgriPool experts, while 925 farmers participated in events. Chart 3 Type of advisors on missions (2007-2010)

Source: Annex 1 – Monitoring Protocol


SPECIAL SERVICES REPORT Farmer cooperatives and development of a provincial farmers’ federation - 08aem-5269 AEMS – China The objectives of the special services were to advise AEMS in using the PPP approach (People’s Participation Programme) to enhance the participation of members in the Farmers’ organisation, to transform the Farmers’ organisation into self-reliant, entrepreneurial and independent farmers’ organisations, and to increase the access of farmers’ organisations to markets and financial services. The objectives are achieved. The mission of the liaison officer in June travelled to two project counties (Menghai and Jingdong) to have workshop meetings with leaders of the local farmer cooperatives (FPO’s), PPP facilitators and Group Promoters. The liaison officer gave several presentations on cooperative development, common problems in cooperatives, and competitive analysis. Many problems and issues were recognised by the FPOs and were applicable for their situation. The FPOs in the two counties visited find themselves in different stages of development and different positions in the Anshof development matrix. The fact that the FPOs are in different stages of development provides a unique opportunity for this project to test the applicability of the PPP approach to FPOs in different stages of development. The AEMS, and the FPO leaders were very positive about this mission. The vice-director of the AEMS expressed that he would like to integrate the new ideas from this mission in the supportive FPO policy of the Agricultural Department. The AgriPool mission in November categorised the FPOs on basis of their stage of development, using the MicroScore scanning tool. Some FPOs are still in the phase of stimulating potential members to become member, and stimulate the participation of members (emerging FPOs), other FPOs are developing their production and access to markets (developing FPOs), and again other FPOs are in discussion with their members about production and business planning for the next three years and are looking for product innovation (mature FPOs). The first mentioned FPOs need organisational support and leadership training. The second have a more technical demand in support in production and business planning. The FPOs that already have developed a business plan are most served by a contact with the bank to get access to investment funds. The general conclusion is that the implementation of the PPP approach supported the development of FPOs very well. The way the approach was applied strongly depended on the leadership capacities of the FPO board. The AgriPoolers recommended to focus support on a few FPOs in one or two counties to be able to be more effective in supporting the process of their development into more mature organisations, and to tailor the specific support towards the development stage that the FPOs are in. The consultant mission was crucial to facilitate the communication between AEMS and Agriterra, and to prepare and join the mission. The consultant also developed training materials, which can be used by Agriterra as input to the further development of the PPP tool. As contacts with financial institutions are not a priority for AEMS in this stage of FPO development in Yunnan, the consultancy mission and other special services could not contribute yet to the development of more and better structural relations of AEMS / FPOs with financial institutions. In meantime, the liaison officer has established contacts with Rabobank Development, who are in the process of buying a 10% in the Rural Credit Cooperative Bank in Yunnan. At the end of 2010 AEMS decided to stop collaboration with Agriterra, because they want to focus on developing proposals for FPOs to get access to subsidies from the national and provincial government. The FPOs themselves clearly stated their interest in continuing support from Agriterra. The special services have been very useful as formed a good basis for future collaboration and implementation of the PPP solution. The participatory character of the PPP-approach was new to the FPOs, but was highly appreciated as a tool to promote member participation and commitment. The approach was also positively appreciated by AEMS. The experience in this project can be integrated in future training programmes developed by AEMS. FPO leaders still need further support to successfully apply this approach in their management style in order to assure a participatory development of their own FPO


Although the share of AgriPool experts is relatively the highest, their share in missions was not as high as expected. In 2008 it was 80% of the actual plan. In 2009 the numbers increased to 88%, but as shown in the table on the precious page, during the entire period 2007-2010 only 54% of the planned AgriPool experts joined. This was mainly caused by scarce funds in 2010, because of which only 10% of the planned number of missions took place: the reason is that most AgriPool missions are advisory missions in the context of a project, and in 2010 there were fewer projects than originally planned. Thus, in 2010 the focus was instead on participation of farmers in training sessions, workshops and other events. The number of visitors from farmers’ organisations who attended events was more than twice as high as the planned number in 2010 and almost twice as high as planned in Farmers Fighting Poverty. On average, when we add up the participating farmers in AgriPool missions and events, we almost reached the goal set in Farmers Fighting Poverty (94%). In other words: out of the 2.314 people on mission, more than 1.500 people were members or employees of farmers’ organisations. This means that almost two-third of the mission participants qualifies as farmer-to-farmer. So, although our main rationale to increase the number of AgriPool experts on missions was not completely met, we did manage to involve many farmers in exchanges. Be it as part of a mission or participant in an event. We should also keep in mind that the planned percentages are not sacrosanct, but that the challenge is in finding the ultimate mix of experts who are best in place to take up the task and to achieve the expected results, some of which will be discussed in section 4 of this chapter. Anyway, we remain convinced of the value of the farmer-to-farmer approach and will continue to improve the expertise amongst farmers. Missions by destination The chart24 shows that most persons either travelled to or within Africa. Of the 656 persons that travelled to and within Africa in 2010, 505 participated in events. These events and workshops were about topics such as climate change, agri-exhibitions, grassroots participation, financial management training and business planning. Most of these events took place in the developing countries, while there were also visits of farmers to Europe and Canada to participate in events and exchange visits. The details of most of these missions can be found on agro-info.net in the Missions module. Chart 4 Destination of participants per region (2007-2010)

Source: agro-info.net

24 Eastern Europe and the Middle East have been added to Asia, because missions to these areas are few in number.


EVENTS: Financial management Financial management is considered as an important topic in Farmers Fighting Poverty. It was also indicated as a work area of which was managed by Agriterra. Agriterra planned to improve financial management in farmers’ organisations. This topic mainly received much attention in 2009 and 2010. A training module on financial management, a financial management handbook, a diagnostics tool and action planner tool, all specifically for farmers’ organisations, were developed. These documents were made in cooperation with various stakeholders: - Mango, a British organisation that specialises in the strengthening of financial management of NGO’s - farmers’ organisations (i.e. KENFAP and ACCU) - agri-agencies (UPA-DI, SCC and Agriterra) Over 200 organisations, including local and provincial branches, from Africa, Latin America and Asia were trained in practical financial management. Many completed ‘health checks’ of their financial management, by completing the assessment tool which measures the financial health of farmers’ organisations by using a broad range of statements of best “healthy” practice. These health checks provide good insight into the deficiencies within the organisations, though follow-up is needed to ensure the elaboration and support of action plans to overcome these deficiencies. Management Accounting in Niger From 20 to 24 September 2010 a MANGO training (Management Accounting for Non Governmental Organisations) was held in Niamey, Niger. Board members and financial managers of several West African farmers’ organisations, such as ANOPACI, AOPP, AREN, CSA/OCP, FCMN-Niya, FEPA/B, FUCOPRI, FUG-Mooriben, FUPRO and RBM were trained. Two Agriterra staff members (a project manager and a liaison officer) also took part. Through this training the participants learned how to manage their financial resources in a controlled, responsible and successful way. The issues discussed were the key principles and concepts of financial management, financial planning, accounting records, financial monitoring and internal control systems. Much opportunity was offered to exchange on methods of financial management, such as the planning system, financial tracking system and internal control. The training was very practical and participative, with a wide range of exercises that often led to discussions. Each day, each participant spent some time to complete the Health Check tool (Health Check). This allowed them to get insight in the strengths and weaknesses of the financial management in their own organisation. The training was highly appreciated by all participants, observers and the trainer. All participants contributed actively, through exercises, reflections, comments and questions. Some topics brought about very lively discussions: “who has which role and responsibilities within an organisation in relation to financial management?”, “how can an organisation become more autonomous and less dependent vis-à-vis the donors?”, “how to keep up membership fees?” After the training the participants went home with hands-on knowledge and tools on financial management. On the basis of the exchanges with the other participants, and the training modules provided, they developed an action plan to improve the financial management of their organisation. As follow-up, each participant was asked to complete an action plan and send it to Agriterra within two weeks after the training. Based on this plan a capacity building trajectory was developed with each organisation.

“I have enjoyed it and has opened my eyes on financial management and my role in the Board.” Tereza Ocilaje Bahemurwaki (treasurer UOSPA-Uganda), participant of financial management training

“The course is very good, available at a right time as we are approaching the Budget Sessions, so we will use these techniques in preparing our organisation budgets.” Kasese Bigs Mwizarubi (TFC-Tanzania), participant of Financial management training


4 Advisory services

Experience throughout the years taught us that there is no ultimate shape or form in which advice is best transferred. Strength lies in finding the right combination of expertise. Luckily, the advice of the agri-agencies is offered in a wide array of shapes and forms: from direct and long-lasting cooperation between farmers’ organisations, and unrivalled practical exchanges from farmer to farmer, to effective advisory teams consisting of farmers, consultants and employees. Burkina Faso: advice is more than advice: it also is debate! In Burkina Faso, the Fédération des Organisations des Professionels Agricoles (FEPA/B) is an important partner of Afdi and Agriterra. Financial management and administrative capacity were an issue in this organisation, and therefore two missions were organised to support FEPA-B in this regard (missions 5481 and 5550 on www.agro-info.net). The missions were carried out by Christophe Nzalamingi, a consultant from DR Congo, and Hamady Sy, the accountant of FONGS, a farmers’ organisation in Senegal. Their main finding was that FEPA/B could solve some pressing accounting problems, thereby also showing other donors that they are well capable of project management. In this case strength lied in three aspects: • The mission was part of a longer-term process • The missions’ focus was on support, not control • Experts who complemented each other very well: a technical expert who assisted

in the implementation of the SAGE accounting programme and an expert with knowledge about institutional matters and politics in a farmers’ organisation. Together they could bring about the change needed.

Insist to exist! The Palestinian Farmers Organisation (PFU) has its head office in Ramallah and sixteen district associations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Agriterra carried out a capacity assessment (mission 5660) of the district associations, in which several expertises of Dutch farmers’ organisations and Agriterra were combined. Henk Kusters (employee of ZLTO) provided his knowledge of the current state of affairs within farmers’ organisations in the Netherlands, and Johan Feitsma (member of LTO Noord) knew PFU and the way that Palestinian farmers work and think, because of the longstanding relation between LTO Noord and PFU. Agriterra’s liaison officer added the expertise on the strengthening of farmers’ organisations in general. This all resulted in an integral advice on how PFU should and could become more member-driven to lay the foundation for PFU to distinguish itself more clearly from ‘general’ NGO’s and assert its right to exist. The main component in the strategy was the higher involvement of the members in policy- and decision-making. By generating a shared vision and strategy, the feeling of ownership would grow amongst the members. Leaders at national level already had some awareness of this need, but from now on the district associations, cooperatives and members would also be involved. Safe tea and soccer In March 2010 Jan Heemskerk, manager at FloraHolland, and Richard van der Maden, horticultural specialist at ZLTO, went to Vietnam upon request of Agriterra (mission 5557). Their task was to advise the provincial chapter of the Vietnam National Farmers Union in Thai Nguyen province (TNFU) on cooperative marketing of safe tea. Thai Nguyen province has a population of more than 1.1 million inhabitants of which 75% live in rural areas. Tea is the most important crop for the farmers, the second


crop is rice. TNFU has 142.000 members of which around 2650 tea farmers are involved in the project activities. Agriterra has been supporting TNFU since 2007. Support that focussed on improving the farmers’ capacity to produce tea in an environmental friendly manner and with less chemicals and pesticides: so-called ‘safe tea’. Eighteen farmers’ groups were established with participation of 540 producers (of which 324 are women). These groups were to develop itself into safe tea cooperative groups, who would collectively market their safe tea. TNFU asked Agriterra to advise on how to develop these cooperative groups and how to improve the marketing of safe tea. The experts’ credo was to build from local and existing structures, and to form the tea marketing cooperative from the existing producer groups. This is quite innovative for Vietnam, as most current cooperatives are semi-governmental and created by the communist party, with the role to ‘manage’ the production areas assigned to them. The experts made recommendations with respect to marketing, based on the marketing mix, also known as the Five P's: product, promotion, place, price and people. To convince the farmers of the proposed model, the metaphor of a soccer team was used. The defence of the soccer team was compared to the tea growers. They form the backbone of the team. But in order to score and to win the match, they need to cooperate with other players. In the midfield we find the chairmen and vice-chairmen of the districts and the leaders of the producer groups. They liaise and cooperate with both the defence and the attack. The latter is formed by the professional Management Team, which should look for new opportunities to sell the tea: new markets and commercial deals. In other words, they have to score!


HARVESTED STORY Sustainable model of safe tea and organic tea - 09tnf-5364 Thai Nguyen Farmers' Union (TNFU) - Vietnam Save money thanks to safe tea

Mr. Thang lives together with his wife and two daughters in the rural area of Tan Cuong, a village in the province Thai Nguyen, Vietnam. He grows tea on 1 hectare of ground. His oldest tea plants are about 70 years old. Besides his wife and sister, 6 people are working on his farm. Also his daughters help when they do not have to go to school. He has 3 drums to cook and dry the tea leaves, and a machine for curling the tea. The capacity of these machines is enough for 5 hectares, so in addition to his own tea, he also processes the fresh tea from other farmers. He is a member of the Thai Nguyen Farmers Union (TNFU) and also associated to a local club of safe tea

growers together with about 30 other farmers. In 2002 he joined the fresh tea production project. About this project he says: “If I would have continued the way I did before 2002, the tea plants would have died”. The safe tea program learned him how and when to apply fertilizer, pesticide and also how to weed. He has been applying the safe tea techniques since 2002. In that time his production increased as well. In the old situation his production was 15 kilogram per each 360 m2, in the new situation it has increased to 27 kilogram per each 360 m2. In 2007 Mr. Thang joined the program for safe tea. This project is implemented by TNFU with financial support from Agriterra. Since then he has more customers who come to buy tea on his farm. Local shops can also order and buy tea on his farm. He does not only produce the tea, but also does the packing and labelling himself. He says he earns enough to save some money. If he would like to supply not only the local shops, but also the supermarkets, he would need to borrow money from a bank to design packages and to perform marketing activities. He would prefer to perform marketing activities together with the other members of the club. The current joint activities of this club consist of sharing experiences on how to apply fertilizer, identifying pests and diseases, and to apply pesticides to fight these pests. They also share labels and organise meetings. The number of meetings held by the club depends on the situation and the amount of pests. The fertilizer company also gives training on how to use fertilizer. Mr. Thang has a wish for the future: “If Agriterra could achieve that we can obtain a loan more easy, we could perform more marketing, together with the other club members. This means we can also deliver our tea to supermarkets”. Agriterra could also help to purchase a machine for packing the tea, which is needed to meet the high demand for hygiene that supermarkets demand. Mr. Thang: “Without a loan each farmer could invest 10 to 20 million VND (388 – 777 Euros), but that is too little to make a significant change”. Cooperative dairy farm The Union of Dairy Farmers (UPL, Mali) in Fana was created in the beginning of the nineties and is an innovative organisation that aims to improve and control feed production, health management and food for the cattle. They created a small dairy farm in 2007 in order to seize the opportunities the milk production of the members offered. Afdi has accompanied the set-up and management of this dairy farm, strengthening the technical and institutional capacities of the people involved. The organisation focused on the research on good quality feed and formed a partnership with an organisation for artificial insemination, to increase the milk potential of the herd.


With assistance of Afdi, UPL has transformed itself into a cooperative society. As such they can now profit from the advantages of selling by bulk, sharing their means and having positioned themselves in urban markets such as that of Bamako. Profits have increased and are being reinvested in the expansion of the dairy farm. The members are happy with the diversification and their ability to buy cattle without any support as a result of the generated income they generated. The reduced need to migrate with their herds brought an end to the land conflicts between cattle breeders and farmers. “This is the kind of meetings we need!” In October 2010, Marc Wittersheim of the French Bureau Technique de Promotion Laitière (BTPL) visited the Union of Milk Cooperatives (ROVA) in Madagascar. The visit was part of a process to strengthen the capacity of the two technicians to assist the farmers. Wittersheim was there to facilitate the exchanges between the technicians and the farmers and accompany the shift in the leading role from the technicians towards the farmers; after all, the farmers have to make the development choices in their organisation. A breakthrough came when the group visited a plot in order to debate a tangible issue: the planting of ryegrass in such a way that its nutritional value for the dairy cattle increased. Marc will never forget the conclusion of Andry, one of the participants: “This is really what we have been waiting for, having meetings like this one!” From Brazil with Claf

In the South of Brazil, family farmers have to face opposition and exploitation by big landowners and middlemen. Fortunately, they are able to do so because they have a strong cooperative federation to defend their interests: the União das Cooperativas da Agricultura Familiar e da Economía Solidária (Unicafes). In 2010, a delegation of Unicafes visited Belgium on a study tour, facilitated by Trias. They got to know some production units of Milcobel, a cooperative of dairy farmers. An issue the leaders of Unicafes were struggling with was how to increase the

loyalty of farmers to their cooperative societies. “Although deep down farmers know very well how important it is to unite, joining us is not always an obvious step for them”, as it was phrased by Jair Sbicigo of Sisclaf in Paraná state. Sisclaf is a regional dairy cooperative society with 23 member coops. It is able to pay higher prices to dairy farmers than other buyers, which is of great importance in a reality of severe price fluctuations and the political taboo on a minimum price. Jair: “I think that many dairy farmers in Southwest Paraná are still there because they have Sisclaf to rely on. We pay them good prices and, thanks to Unicafes, have good advocacy going for us. And there are more results: in 2009 we bought a dairy factory from Letícia (an important player on the Brazilian market), where we make mozzarella that is sold in Rio de Janeiro and São Paulo. We now even have our own brand name for the mozzarella: Claf." The delegation indicated that the partnership with Milcobel and with the Belgian farmers’ union Boerenbond is important for them. “It has increased Unicafes’ capacities for marketing, trade and negotiations, and the way in which Milcobel influences prices and creates added value is a permanent source of inspiration.”


A testimony from the Democratic Republic of Congo

Since 1990’s, a number of farmers’ organisations have been created in Eastern Congo. Some succeeded, and some of them failed in their mission and disappeared due to lack of clear vision and mismanagement by their leaders.

For more than ten years now, Agriterra has supported farmers’ organisations in the Democratic Republic of Congo, mainly in North and South Kivu. Among these organisations are SYDIP, COOCENKI, LOFEPACO, FOPAC, UPDI, RESEAU ASALI and APDIK. Thanks to the advisory services from Agriterra, these organisations have reached a good standard and are now defending the interests of their members. Other organisations in the other provinces are taking them as an example to follow. This has drawn the attention of other international NGO’s to deliver services to farmers’ organisations as they find that these organisations are well-structured. Agriterra has placed the tree and other NGO’s have added the branches. Agriterra’s success is the result of its policy which focuses on institutional support. Agriterra has always offered permanent support to capacity building programs such as the ATAOP leadership training program (Assistance Technique d’Agriterra aux Organisations Paysannes) and others.

As the farmers’ leaders have realised the importance of coaching in their day to day activities, they have set up an organisation called Fondation Maendeleo au Congo (FOMAC). Every three months, FOMAC facilitates workshops in which the leaders and chief executives of the farmer’s organisations exchange about their working experience. This practice has helped to solve a number of problems that arise in farmers’ organisations such as: lack of clear roles of each organ, communication problems, human resource management, etc. Being very close to farmers’ organisations, FOMAC has worked closely with Agriterra and helped to reinforce the advisory services through the ATAOP program. They for instance organised workshops on leadership. By exchanging on their experiences, the leaders learned how to resolve conflicts. The seemingly simple solution to refer to the constitution whenever there are disagreements, turned out to be an important eye-opener which now prevents much discussion. It also gives the leaders the tool to claim their position and responsibility whenever they are confronted with employees that try to seize too much influence. It makes the governing of the organisation clear to everyone.

The result of Agriterra’s advisory services can be summarised as follows: • Clear responsibilities between Board Members and the staff • Reference to legal texts whenever there is a problem to solve • Awareness has been created about the necessity to mobilize internal resources • Setting up a common code of conduct for farmers’ organisations • Setting up communication strategies to enhance good governance within farmers’

organisations • Shift in leadership is no longer a problem at the end of the leadership term • North Kivu farmers’ organisations serve as a model for the other provinces in Congo • Farmers have succeeded in putting up an agricultural policy which has been

accepted by the Parliament (Code Agricole) Important results are that leader are now able to resolve conflicts themselves and that farmers to be able to influence the Government. However, economic activities are still not on a high enough level in order to sustain the actions of the farmers’ organisations. This is why Agriterra has started a new programme of economic reinforcement by training farmers’ organisation’s leaders in making business plans. MALIYASASA

SYALEMBEREKA, Fondation Maendeleo au Congo Former head of advisory department SYDIP (Congo DR)


Farmers’ leaders from Congo, Rwanda and Burundi exchanging their experiences, Kibuye/Rwanda, November 2010


5 Building Bridges

Agri-agencies are strong network organisations: they maintain contacts with many different stakeholders that contribute to the advancement of the rural membership-based organisation in developing countries. Some of those contacts have developed into true alliances, most very successful, one not so much. Partnership with IFAP: between hope and despair In 1946, farmers’ organisations from 13 countries founded the International Federation of Agricultural Producers (IFAP) in London, acting upon the creation of UN institutions such as the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). Under the presidency of Gerard Doornbos (1998-2002), IFAP took the Millennium Development initiative in 2000 to grant farmers’ organisations from developing countries easier access to the federation, and to promote their capacity building through farmer-to-farmer cooperation. A spectacular membership growth ensued: after 2005, more than half of the member organisations were from developing countries, and in 2008 Ajay Vashee from Zambia became the first president from such a country. Within AgriCord, an Agriterra-IFAP project was set up to increasingly professionalise the international capacity building from farmer-to-farmer. Meanwhile, the Dutch government was convinced of the importance of IFAP, and its vice-minister for Development Cooperation made a special appearance during the World Farmers Congress of 2006 in Seoul in order to announce a contribution of € 50 million to Farmers Fighting Poverty. At the start of the programme, IFAP’s executive committee made two decisions: • to adequately manage the membership growth by professionalising the Paris

secretariat • to initiate a process to improve the participation of members of developing

countries, particularly in IFAP’s policy preparation. To make this possible, a large project with IFAP was approved as part of Farmers Fighting Poverty. In the report on 2009 we extensively discussed the difficulties that arose in the execution of this project. Sadly, IFAP was declared bankrupt during 2010. The agri-agencies also supported the Developing Cooperation Committee (DCC) of IFAP. The DCC functioned as a forum for farmers’ organisations in developing countries to give feedback on the work of AgriCord. Since 2009, AgriCord has mobilised such feedback from the regional farmers’ federations in Asia (AFA), Africa (ROPPA, EAFF, SACAU etc.) and Latin America, with whom the agri-agencies already closely cooperated. For the policy orientation that we used to obtain from IFAP, we now call upon these regional alliances in the role of an ‘advisory committee’ In 2011, 50 OECD farmers’ organisation are working towards the creation of a new global farmers’ platform, presumably with an important role for the regional farmers’ federations in Asia (AFA), Africa (ROPPA, SACAU etc.) and Latin America (COPROFAM). AgriCord is not involved in this process. Partnerships of Afdi Afdi works with Réseau des Centres d’Économie Rurale (CER network France) on promotion and training. Their partnership with CIRAD (research centre) revolves round the establishment of an instrument to assess effects and impact of the CEF tool


(Advice to Family Farms). It is clear that CEF contributes to farmers’ capacity to monitor their production. Nevertheless, the CEF impact has to be specified better. CIRAD is setting up a study, consisting of a group of farmers that did participate in CEF activities, and a control group that did not. The West African farmers’ organisations, who daily face huge challenges and changes in their countries, are extremely important partners in dialogue for Afdi. Particularly in Benin and Burkina Faso, interesting activities are going on. Afdi and IRAM (Institut de Recherches et d’Applications des Méthodes de développement) have proposed to the Confédération Paysanne du Faso (CPF) and the Fédération des unions de producteurs agricoles du Bénin (FUPRO) to analyse these changes and to devise strategies to cope with them. West-African family farming is essentially characterised by the diversity of production, so that crop-specific specialisation on the part of farmers’ organisations can result in some producers and, on a wider scale, on some production areas, becoming marginalised25. The consultations with CPF and FUPRO resulted in a document in which a balanced approach is described. It promotes to support organisations dealing with cross-cutting issues and organisations that are active in a specific sector or commodity. Partnerships of FERT FERT is in constant search for partnerships with other actors to mobilise their and synergies and greater effectiveness are made possible. Over the entire period 2007-2010, numerous partnerships have been developed with different kinds of stakeholders. Some of these partnerships deserve special mention, such as their long-term cooperation with l’Institut Agronomique de Settat au Maroc (see the project on high-quality wheat, 4951) and the partnership with CNEAP (Conseil National de l’Enseignement Agricole Privé), the French federation of private agricultural schools. Together with fellow-French agri-agency Afdi, FERT is co-writing a policy text « Développer toutes les agricultures du Monde : pour un partenariat renouvelé entre professionnels », under the umbrella of CAF (Conseil de l’Agriculture Française) and FARM (Fondation pour l’Agriculture et la Ruralité dans le Monde).

Furthermore, FERT promotes the Réseau grandes Cultures Méditerranéen (RCM), which groups farmers’ organisations, training institutes and research centres of seven countries around the Mediterranean: Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Lebanon, France, Portugal, and Spain. And in 2010, FERT joined the Inter-Réseaux Développement Rural, a reflection and study network on rural development practices. Partnerships of SCC SCC has been working on a warehouse receipt system for farmers’ cooperative businesses together with the Moshi University College of Cooperatives and Business Studies (MUCCoBS) in Tanzania. Likewise, work has been done with the Cooperative College Kenya to develop HIV/AIDS mainstreaming tools for the cooperative sector. And SCC has partnered with the International Fund for Agricultural Development IFAD, to develop appropriate financial services for support to agriculture. Over the last three years, Africa-wide seminars were organised on this topic, bringing together all actors involved in agriculture microfinance, including the policy makers. See http://www.ica.coop/africa/2010-ruralfinance/index.html 25 The need for a balanced approach to supporting small farming associations. AFDI-FUPRO-CPF-IRAM, September 2010.


Partnerships of Trias The multi-stakeholder approach is the foundation in Trias’ strategy for local economic development and value-chain strategies that give shape to the organisational strengthening and institutional development processes of its producer organisation partners. Horizontally, these organisations connect to other relevant players to form alliances and/or defend their interest at the level they operate on. And vertically, they ‘link up’ with higher level entities that can take their concerns up to higher levels. Or they can position themselves in relation to other players in the value chain. Very often, both dimensions have beneficial effects on each other, which is why Trias actively stimulates such interlinking. An interesting case to illustrate the strength of this combined approach is the evolution of COCAMA (Coopérative de Cacao du Mayumbe) and of REPAM (Regroupement des paysans producteurs du Mayumbe) in Congo DR. With the support of Trias, the cooperative COCAMA started to work on the improvement of the quality of their cocoa. To start with they offered a small quantity of produce to an international buyer, the Belgium-based international Puratos (www.puratos.com). Over the years, quality and quantity improved and a structural alliance between Puratos, COCAMA and Trias took shape. A win-win situation arose: the cocoa producers were guaranteed an interesting price and a stable outlet for their cocoa, and Puratos was assured to have access to a good quality product of special origin. In the meantime, the formal creation of COCAMA was concluded. It is considered a relevant player in the local development fora by both the private sector and local authorities. Taking advantage of this new legitimacy, the cooperative is actively lobbying to change a local law impeding an optimal harvesting calendar for smallholders. To do so, they combined forces with REPAM, another local level producer organisation. Notwithstanding its still rather limited organisational experience, REPAM has already been actively and successfully involved in a joint effort to obtain the restitution of land from the international company SCAM. At provincial level REPAM is related to the farmers’ organisation FOPAKO (Force Paysanne du Congo Central) that is working on linking the farmers’ dynamics in the region with other farmers’ organisations in the rest of the country. With several other local organisations they have successfully lobbied at the national level to incorporate the concerns of the family farmers into the new General Agricultural Law (Code Agricole) for the development of the rural sector in DR Congo. In this law, family agriculture has finally been recognised as the cornerstone for rural economical development. REPAM and FOPAKO are also actively involved in a series of 28 exchange and discussion seminars that will be organised throughout the country with representatives of organised family agriculture to prepare joint positioning on important issues like rural finance and rural infrastructures. This will be the start of the reflections on how the movement of family farmers can organise themselves at the national level on a permanent basis. The support of Trias during this process has been multidimensional (financial support, facilitation, technical advice) but has always remained demand-driven and bottom-up inspired. Local capacities and organisational strength form the basis for local action that then links up with higher level action and allied organisations. Farmers-to-farmers advice, both South-South and North-South (via Landelijke Gilden), constitutes an essential force in the process. Networking with other development players who share the concern for the family farmers in DR Congo also led to the establishment of a formal alliance called AgriCongo, regrouping six Belgian development NGO’s and associating four other ones that all together try to streamline their support to farmers’ organisations in DR Congo in becoming important entities.


Partnerships of Agriterra SNV Plans and development In June 2007, Agriterra, SNV & Agri-ProFocus signed a partnership to become “Partners in support to Producer Organisations”, in order to pool resources to strengthen producer organisations and enable them to contribute to the UN Millennium Development Goals. The objectives of the joint partnership are: 1) Improved performance of producer organisations (Agriterra and SNV) 2) Enabling environment for producer organisations (Agriterra and SNV) 3) Knowledge management (Agriterra, SNV and APF) Table 10 Realisation of input SNV - Agriterra 2007 2008 2009 2010-2011/5 Total Agriterra (Euro) 818.412 1.350.157 877.910 907.957 3.954.436

As % of target 273% 225% 110% 91% 146%

SNV (PPD)26 386 913 1116 3278 5693 As % of target 83% 98% 90% 211% 136% Number of farmers’ organisations

6 11 12 16 22

In 2007, six producer organisations were supported by Agriterra and SNV. In 2008 the partnership covered eleven projects in Africa and Asia. Very clear results were not yet visible after these initial years. It was decided that each producer organisation had to state expected results from the collaboration and subsequently report specifically on them. In 2009, the partnership involved twelve producer organisations. The improved reporting guidelines soon delivered better knowledge about the actual impact of the partnership. A good example is Teasec (Nepal), a cooperative federation of small tea growers that received support from Agriterra since 2008. Local tea grower groups organised themselves in 48 cooperatives. The lobby of these cooperatives resulted in better prices for green leaf tea for the members, and some factories started to pay the transportation costs from the tea garden to the factory. In other cases SNV and Agriterra were not sufficiently aware of each other’s programmes and the cooperation could have been more efficient. Better registration was a part of the solution: a system of best practices documentation (somewhat like story harvesting) started in 2010. The partnership in Uganda with the Luwero District Farmers’ Association (LUDFA) regarding the expansion of pineapple acreage and promotion of organised marketing of fresh pineapples is a good example. LUDFA members visited pineapple farmers in Ghana to learn about the pineapple supply chain and best agricultural practices. These were documented in a mission report, which shows that valuable knowledge was gained through the exposure to the best practices in Ghana. LUDFA learned about technologies such as “forcing”, “degreening” that were done to have uniform fruiting and ripening to ensure consistent supply. In 201027 Agriterra was supposed to contribute € 1million SNV would avail 10 FTEs for advisory services. Unfortunately, project funding for 2010 had to decrease because

26 155 PPD = 1 FTE 27 Annual Report 2010 SNV-Agriterra-APF partnership, 18 February 2011


Agriterra did not receive the hoped-for complementary funding. In the end, Agriterra’s contribution amounted to € 900.000, and SNV availed 21,1 FTE (211% of the target for 2010). PROJECT REPORT Renforcer les capacités, la production et la productivité des cooperatives des agri-éleveurs - 09pks-5534 - (1 January 2010 – 31 March 2011) APDIK – Congo, D.R. L’Apdik (Association paysanne pour le développement intégré au Sud-Kivu) est née en 1996 suite à un constat des problèmes de leur milieu ( Minembwe, Fizi) enclavé et soumis à diverses violations au quotidien. C’est pour rétablir l’équilibre socio-économique ainsi que les liens interhumains que les paysans (essentiellement des éleveurs de bovins) des hauts plateaux d`Itombwe et de Minembwe ont crée leur organisation paysanne. L’APDIK est une association qui œuvre dans les hauts plateaux de Fizi /Minembwe. Les paysans d’ici ont un problème très sérieux de sous-développement. Il existe 18 coopérations locales pour collecter de lait et pour d`autres produits agricoles. Membres 10.823 (40% femmes). L’APDIK a comme vision de « Faire un monde paysan du Sud-Kivu, une référence d’une justice sociale, une paix durable, moteur d’une économie du marché basée sur la technologie agricole à travers la filière lait et ses connexes, dans un environnement sain et attractif». La mission de l’ APDIK est la promotion du bien être des paysans éleveurs par l’amélioration qualitative et quantitative du revenu du paysan à travers la filière du lait et la création des micro entreprises connexes. Ce projet (fin 31-3-2011) avait comme but de renforcer les capacités, la production et la productivité des coopératives des agri-éleveurs d’APDIK. En général on peut dit que la plupart des objectifs spécifiques, donc les activités sont réalisées. D’un part, l’appui se focalisé sur le renforcement des capacités par offrir des plusieurs formations, comme par exemple une formation en gestion financière, formation sur l’alimentation du bétail et la formation sur la fabrication de beurre et fromage. Grace à cette dernière formation, la production de beure était en mars 2011 110 kg. Pour la référence, en moyen la production de beurre était 82 kg par mois en 2010. En plus, pour l’augmentation de la production laitière, le patrimoine génétique de la vache locale est amélioré. Il y avait une formation pour 4 éleveurs en techniques d’Insémination Artificielle. Avec un contribution propre de 4000 USD et une crédit de 2000 USD, une association coopérative des femmes veuves a acheté une machine de fabrication de beurre. Avec cette machine la production a augmenté la production de beurre et fromage et en conséquent le vente de fromage de 300 en 2009 à 2000 en 2010. Results An evaluation28 was carried out on the basis of eleven in-depth case studies of joint projects in Africa and Asia (see Annex 9). In terms of planned inputs and objectives, the final results can be described as follows: • Agriterra and SNV have achieved the input targets as set out in the Memorandum

2007-2010, despite the relative slow start-up and the limited availability of funds in 2010

• The eleven cases indicate that none of the farmers’ organisations show lasting performance yet. But the clients are working more and more on a business approach with focus on tangible results and financial sustainability

28 See for details: Corporate Partnership Agriterra, SNV & Agri-ProFocus: “Partners in Support to Producer Organisations”. End Report and Auto-Evaluation. By the Coordinating Committee: Hans Meenink – SNV, Nellie van der Pasch – Agriterra and Roel Snelder – Agri-ProFocus, June 2011


Performance of producer organisations: Nepal TEASEC (Tea Sector Services Centre) in Nepal has performed well both in the short, medium and long-term sustainability. Direct outcomes of the cooperation with SNV and Agriterra were: - The establishment of 48 grass-roots cooperatives and 4 district cooperatives, with 2606

members. This structure allows more opportunity for market access and communication between members and other actors of the value chains

- 1.100 Code-of-Conduct-certified farmers - Increased TEASEC staff performance Even more importantly, TEASEC which is not a membership-based organisation itself, has sown the seed for the creation of a national federation of tea farmers: the Central Tea Cooperative Federation (CTCF). This was achieved in 2010 and means that the Nepalese tea farmers now truly have their own representative body.

• The objective ‘enabling environment for producer organisations’ shows a mixed

picture. A number of cases, where both Agriterra and SNV had long-term relations with, clearly showed big improvements in this regard. It is unclear how this was influenced by the fact that these partnerships started before 2007

Enabling environment for producer organisations: Benin Since 2009, Agriterra and SNV together with the Dutch embassy in Benin, support FUPRO (national farmers’ organisation) in acquiring their place in the maize value chain. Thanks to a fully shared agenda, FUPRO has become a stronger organisation and has positioned itself in the policy arena as the representative of the farmers. As a result of their interference on topics such as value chain development, land and credit they put family farming in the centre of national policy. As a consequence, the farmers’ movement became more coherent and national leaders more confident. The topics of financial autonomy and economic activities will be receiving more attention the coming years.

• Achieving ‘knowledge management between the three parties’ seems to have been

less successful. Except for an exchange event in West-Africa (2009) and much knowledge-sharing at individual staff level and institutional level between SNV and Agriterra, there is definitely room for improvement. Particularly with regard to setting a joint learning agenda.

Knowledge sharing: West Africa Also at institutional level, SNV and Agriterra have set a joint learning trajectory in motion, for instance on land issues. They did a joint research on ‘land grabbing’ mechanisms in Burkina Faso, Benin and Niger. The result of such mutual learning experiences is that the organisations become increasingly like-minded.

Agri-ProFocus Agriterra intensively supported the Agri-ProFocus (APF) platform in various ways. It has contributed to a number of programmes, such as the HIV/AIDS trajectory in Eastern and Southern Africa; a good example where knowledge from the APF participants (Van Hall Larenstein, Agriterra and SCC) was generated within the farmers’ organisations, like UNFFE and UOSPA in Uganda. This will be developed into a toolbox to be used by the clients in their HIV/AIDS programmes.


Similarly, Agriterra became involved in a number of so-called ‘Agrihubs’ through the national farmers’ organisation of Kenya (KENFAP). In 2011 it is foreseen that Agriterra will participate in the Agrihubs in Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda and Niger. At the same time, Agriterra takes up its role as defender of farmers’ organisations in the world of development cooperation in this partnership. They are particularly committed towards the network remaining focused on strengthening producer organisations. It is undeniable though that Agri-ProFocus’ capacity for lobby and political leverage lead to no small achievements. IICD Agriterra’s partnership with the International Institute for Communication and Development (IICD) revolves around sharing knowledge. The partnership is geared to combining expertise in order to both be able to deliver better services. A Memorandum of Understanding was drafted in 2008, which ended in 2010. In 2009 the partnership included six projects in which on the one hand the use of ICT’s in the context of rural livelihoods was optimised and on the other hand worked on the integration of ICT’s as part of the farmers’ organisations. In order to maintain the continuity of some projects, IICD took over Agriterra’s contribution for 2010 in the projects with AOPEB and CIOEC. Though the formal Memorandum ended in 2010, both Agriterra and IICD expressed their willingness to continue this partnership. LANDac Agriterra is member of LANDac (www.landgovernance.org). LANDac is a cooperation of academic institutions, policy-makers and development practitioners addressing the issue of land governance, with particular emphasis on the land deals sometimes referred to as ‘land grabbing’. Agriterra’s role in the consortium is primarily to enrich the research with questions and issues suggested by farmers’ organisations. On the other hand Agriterra also informs the farmers’ organisations on the results of that research, so they can make use of this in their policy dialogue with government and other stakeholders. A good example of this is the research carried out together with SNV and KIT in West Africa in 2010. By means of surveys the actual deals that took place in a number of countries were investigated: who were the sellers, who were the buyers, what happened? The study29 showed that, contrary to what is generally assumed, most of the land did not change hands through large-scale foreign acquisitions but rather that buyers are urban-based elites who negotiate directly with local chiefs that sell it to these buyers - frequently without informing the villagers that lease the land. This new insight will undoubtedly influence the way farmers’ organisations in West Africa design their lobby strategy. That way, they can better protect the rights and livelihood of local farmers who are in danger of losing their access to land without so much as a day’s notice. A follow-up study (2011) is intended to contribute precisely to designing that lobby strategy. Agriterra is a member of the executive committee of LANDac and contributes also to other activities of the network. A case in point is the yearly summer school on land governance. In 2010 Raúl Banzuela from the Philippine farmers’ organisation PAKISAMA gave a guest lecture, and in 2011 we will invite a representative from the African Great Lakes region. 29 Agrarian change below the radar screen: Rising farmland acquisitions by domestic investors in West Africa. Results from a survey in Benin, Burkina Faso and Niger. By Thea Hilhorst, Joost Nelen and Nata Traoré (April, 2011).


ILO Since April 2009 Agriterra cooperates with ILO (The International Labour Organisation), WUR and KIT in the further development of training modules for capacity building of primary agricultural cooperatives. The training package "Managing your agricultural cooperative, My.COOP" is based on the original MATCOM training modules that were developed by the ILO in the eighties. My.Coop is intended to develop further in the future, for instance with additional modules on HIV/AIDS. By the end of 2011 the training modules are probably accessible through the My.Coop website. ILO and Agriterra also cooperate in the network of cooperative development agencies in Africa (SCC, ICA-Africa, etc). This cooperation with ILO is expected to intensify during the course of Farmers Fighting Poverty 2011-2014. PSO Starting out as a PSO member in 2007, Agriterra actively used the facilities of PSO during the past years. PSO is an association that consists of sixty Dutch development organisations. The association focuses on capacity development at civil society organisations in developing countries. Thanks to the support of PSO, a number of (junior/senior) advisers could be deployed abroad to strengthen farmers’ organisations. The participation in learning trajectories on various fields was also supported. With the support of PSO, Agriterra contracted ten on-site advisors within four years time. Table 11 Overview of on-site junior/senior advisors Year Organisations Fte 2007 TDCU (Tanzania), Nefscun (Nepal) 1,25 fte 2008 TDCU, Nefscun, Unag-Chinandega (Nicaragua) 2,83 fte 2009 TDCU, Nefscun, Unag- Chinandega,

ACCU (South Asia), Cocla (Peru) 3,08 fte

2010 Nefscun, Unag- Chinandega, Cocla, ACCU,

Fopac + 12 other organisations (DR Congo), FCMN and AREN (Niger)

5,53 fte

Total 21 PO’s in seven countries 12,69 fte In cooperation with PSO, Agriterra could allow (young) professionals to develop their expertise on site and directly contribute to the further strengthening of the organisations they worked for. With the support of a Bolivian junior expert, Unag-Chinandega has been able to prepare a strategic plan for its service centre for cooperatives ‘CEGE’. This centre helps cooperatives to get access to markets. The centre itself ensures that its profit can be used to sustain Unag-Chinandega’s activities in the future. With support from PSO learning and innovative trajectories were implemented on important areas: Farmers’ organisations in fragile states; Setting up a monitoring system for clients; Agro-tourism; Micro-finance programme.


CDI-OPPO By the end of 2008 the first steps were taken to develop a course on ‘optimising performance of producer organisations’ (OPPO), together with CDI-Wageningen. The course was meant for farmers’ organisations and the service delivery organisations working with them. The first edition of the course was held in the beginning of 2011 in Wageningen. It is the intention of all organisations involved to deliver the course on an annual basis with the human resource support from Agriterra and experts from its constituency, notably LTO-Nederland and the National Council of Cooperatives (NCR) In addition to that, it is likely that an OPPO course will be held in developing countries as well. A number of national farmers’ organisations have shown interest already, and regional organisations such as AFA, EAFF, ROPPA, and PAFFO may play the role of service provider in this regard. CDI and Agriterra will assist them in becoming training service providers if required. It is expected that the demand for the course by service delivery organisations and producer organisations will increase gradually through the Agri-ProFocus Agrihubs.

AgriPooler Bert Sandee working with CAPAD on potatoes – Burundi

53 Projects: the building blocks

III Projects: the building blocks

1 Introduction

Projects are the way in which we shape our support to farmers’ organisations. As such they are the building blocks towards farmers’ organisations becoming stronger. Each agri-agency has its specific approach in the projects they implement, and one of the tasks of AgriCord is the coordination and harmonisation of this work, which is done by the Project Committee (PC). For a description of the way this body (and other AgriCord structures) is organised we refer to annex 4, describing their composition and general activities. The table below shows the total number of projects implemented during Farmers Fighting Poverty. These numbers also include the so-called micro-projects and 18 institutional projects related to the work area management. Seen the large number of projects, it is impossible to give a solid overview of the narrative results of all projects. Therefore this chapter will present some activities and results that are representative of the projects carried out during the programme period. We have also selected a few reports on project results that give an impression of the diversity of topics the producer organisations work on with the assistance of the agri-agencies. Some project reports are presented throughout this activity report, and can be recognised by the header ‘project report’. The reports on all projects can be found on www.agro-info.net. Please consult Annex 2 for the list of projects of 2007-2010 and Annex 2b for an explanation on how to find them online. Table 12 Number of projects and expenditure per continent 2007-2010 Continent Projects Expenditures

(€) relative amount

Africa 309 65.319.016 60%

Asia 89 11.211.405 10%

Eastern Europe 11 1.476.770 2%

Non-Eastern Europe 16 3.573.262 3%

Latin America 105 13.779.772 13%

World 40 13.455.210 12%

Total 570 108.815.434 100% Source: Annex 1 (monitoring protocol) The figures show that within the entire programme the goal to direct 60% of project funds to Africa has been achieved. In 2007 (55%) and 2008 (59,5%) this target was already within reach. The trend continued and by 2009 already 65% of funds was directed to Africa. While in 2010 there was a small decrease, the programme target was exactly achieved. 2 Approaches

Every agri-agency has a specific approach in the support of projects. When looking at work areas, most projects took place under work area 5 - grass-roots participation (19%), work area 3 - internal organisational strengthening (14%) and work area 11 - market & chain development (13%). All agri-agencies accompany the farmers’ organisations in access to information, analytical capacity, and strengthening of their political ability to influence policies. Besides focus on these work areas, each agri-agency had its specific topic. Agriterra put much emphasis on financial management


PROJECT REPORT Augmenter durablement et mieux utiliser la production vivrière des membres de la Maison des Paysans - 09mpt-5319 Maison des Paysans Tuléar – Madagascar Le projet mis en œuvre par la Maison des Paysans a pour objectif l'accompagnement de l’intensification de l’agriculture malgache couplée à des mesures de sécurisation et de diversification, l’information sur les marchés, l’appui à la gestion des productions ainsi que le renforcement des capacités de la Maison des Paysans, pour une efficacité optimale de ses actions. Le projet a permis la production de semences de qualité adaptées aux conditions pédo-climatiques de la région. 50 Paysans Multiplicateurs de Semences pour 8 spéculations différentes ont été identifiés et formés et suivi régulièrement par le technicien de la Maison des Paysans (2 visites de suivi par mois). La Maison des Paysans a ainsi mis en place un contrôle de la qualité des semences multipliées, qui permet de bénéficier d'une certification. Les semences certifiées sont ensuite pesées et conditionnées. Le projet a ainsi permis la production de plus de 13 tonnes de semences certifiées. Le projet a permis à la Maison des Paysans de mettre en place un système d'approvisionnement en intrants et en matériel agricole. La Maison des Paysans a distribué et vendu un total de 27 tonnes de semences aux paysans du Sud Ouest. Les produits phytosanitaires, engrais et matériels agricoles sont disponibles pour les paysans, vendus à crédit par les organisations de base. Une convention de collaboration avec une caisse de crédit a été élaborée, ce qui facilite l'accès au crédit pour les agriculteurs. Les délégués techniques ont expérimenté et diffusé des techniques innovantes. Ils ont notamment mis en place des parcelles expérimentales sur plus de 10 cultures. 798 Délégués Techniques sont ainsi impliqués dans la diffusion des innovations techniques. Les techniciens ont aussi diffusé des mesures d’amélioration de la fertilité des sols, et des variétés et espèces productives.

(work area 2). Afdi paid special attention to agricultural development (crops, work area 7). SCC implemented most projects on processing of agricultural products (work area 17), with focus on cooperatives, while Trias mainly worked on projects aiming at market & chain development (work area 11). Market access Throughout the programme, farmers' organisations were supported in their pursuit to develop economic services for their members. The efforts of all agri-agencies together with farmers’ organisations mainly concerned the improved marketing of products, the ability to combine sales offers, either locally by targeting a local supermarket or by exporting, depending on the quality of the product. Farmers' organisations have worked on the recognition of their products through labelling, certifying or registration of the products, which allows for a larger marketability and better sales of the product concerned. Afdi specifically used the expertise of managers of French cooperatives in their training programmes with farmers’ organisations. This led to better knowledge of markets and stakeholders and strengthened the negotiating capacity of cooperatives with business partners. In Madagascar, Afdi and the farmers’ organisations took advantage of experiences with partners related to economic services set up by the farmers’ organisation. The project report below shows the results of the activities.


In Burkina Faso, SCC supported three regional farmers’ unions in the development of a cow pea commodity value chain to replace the unprofitable cotton farming which had been affected by climate change. Over 3.500 smallholder cow pea producers are actively engaged in this value chain and cow pea yields rose from 600kg/ha to 780Kg/ha. Women also found their place in the organisation, and even made up the majority of the members in the unions (55% by 2010). Whereas cotton is no longer profitable in Burkina Faso, in Southern Africa it is still one of the most significant cash crops in the region. The contract cotton farming project of the regional farmers Union (SACAU), supported by SCC, managed to raise the average price of purchased cotton from US$ 0.31/kg to US$ 0.34/kg, with indicative figures showing that farmers now earn US$ 1.10/day. This is a significant improvement for the 750.000 smallholder cotton producers actively involved in this value chain. In 2009, FERT was able to collect its best practices of its successful work in Tanzania in the publication “Capitalisation of rural market development”. Ten years of partnership (1999-2009) with Mviwata, Tanzania’s national network organisation, resulted in six rural markets, which are now managed under the responsibility of committees of the markets in which farmers' organisations are strongly involved. These markets provide relevant services to their users, like price information and storage facilities. As such these markets contribute to the development of the agricultural sector which is of major importance for the country and the sub-regions. In the document produced concrete examples are given of how to set up local markets. This is a great example of recording knowledge so it can be transferred and used by others to improve their market conditions and increase livelihood of farmers. In Bosnia-Herzegovina, Agriterra supported a project together with LLTB (Dutch farmers’ organisation) which aimed at improving the technical aspects of the horticultural chain. This was done for the members of agricultural cooperatives Vocar and Prunus and the women’s organisation Anima, representing a total of around 2.000 farmers. The basic goal of this project was to increase revenue, mostly by improving the production. By doing so, the living conditions of the producers would be improved. The more practical education during the summer-autumn period focussed on cucumber, vegetables (including introduction of new vegetables), (berry) fruit and greenhouses. In winter, more time was devoted to theoretical education on developing presentation skills and meetings with producers. An expert advised on how to organise the production and purchase, and activities related to marketing. The practical and on-the-spot approach worked very convincing for farmers (seeing is believing). By the end of the project, yields were significantly higher. Especially for those farmers who used the modern technological solutions offered through the training. Many producers had yields over 4.500 kg of first and second class of vegetables per hectare. In addition, farmers in 22 municipalities were educated on the importance of crop rotation, basic autumn and winter tillage, fertilization with organic nutrients such as beef, poultry manure and soil liming. Production improvement gains in marketing channels are also assured. The Vocar cooperative works hard at this: they made an arrangement with a buyer from Croatia involving 3,000 tons of cucumbers. UPA DI supports CCA (Central Cooperativa Agropecuaria) in El Salvador in their goal to improve their milk production. Milk production is important for six cooperatives of CCA. It provides stable and regular employment 12 months a year and as such is essential for their economic strength. The total daily production is about 8000 bottles (6.000 litres). Milk is almost entirely transported to a local processing plant. The volume of milk currently accounts for over 40% of the volume processed by the buyer.


This fact should give the milk farmers’ group some bargaining power with the buyer. Yet the contracts signed between the buyer and each cooperative are unchanged for over 10 years. In addition, it is almost impossible to individually negotiate terms and conditions. Strengthening the cooperatives was therefore an important element in this project. In the first two years, the focus was on the cooperation between the cooperatives and the increase of production through improved fodder and changes in production techniques. The cooperatives use of farm machinery is now in place and functional and well managed by the milk committee. Milk production has improved. The data indicate an increase in production of 13% between 2009 and 2010 for all the unions involved in this project. Profitability also increased. The profit per cow is even greater than 267 USD. Of the six cooperatives, four generated benefits in milk production by 2010 compared to only one in 2009. Trias supported MVIWAMO (member of Mviwata, the national umbrella organisation), a member-based farmers’ organisation located in Monduli, Tanzania, in the period 2008-2010. The main goals of the project were to help MVIWAMO to offer better production and marketing services to their members and to help MVIWAMO increase the number of members so that critical mass could be used to defend the interests of the small scale farmers in the Monduli district. The production and marketing part of the project focused mainly on the development of the poultry value chain. Although the project kicked off quite late, the goals were more than achieved. Productivity went up from an average of 5-10 chicken/person to 39 chickens per person. By 2010 the 406 poultry farmers had about 14.578 chicken compared to 5.385 in September 2009, an increase of 170%! The increase in productivity is mainly the result of better access to veterinary services provided by the fourteen paravets (local veterinarians) trained by MVIWAMO. Also the training in the construction of improved poultry sheds (adopted by at least 60% of the farmers), feed mixing and good chicken keeping practices have contributed to the increased productivity. In the past three years MVIWAMO realised important growth of its membership and was able to fit this growth in its increasingly better organised decentralised structures. MVIWAMO has now about 6.860 members in Arusha region compared to 650 members at the beginning of the project. The total number of producer groups even increased from 40 to 188. This growth is a clear indication that the members of MVIWAMO are happy with the services they receive. Participation in the PGPP (participatory generation of positions and proposals) methodology organised by Agriterra helped MVIWAMO to lobby in a more systemized way, by making better use of the input of their members. Lobby & Advocacy: the example of Africa After twenty years marked by the withdrawal of state agricultural sector, and after the food crises in recent years, most African governments have recognised the need for a revival of agriculture and rural development. Today many African countries develop agricultural policies, pass agricultural laws and set agricultural policies for rural development strategies to support the development of the agricultural sector. In this time of recovered importance of agricultural policies, the agri-agencies supported the efforts of several farmers’ organisations in claiming their place during the process of drawing the policies. This greater involvement of farmers’ organisations in the development of the policies led to remarkable results. The participation of the main farmers' organisations of West Africa (CNOP - Mali, CNCR - Senegal, FUPRO - Benin, CPF - Burkina Faso, ANOPACI - Ivory Coast) were supported in the development and implementation of agricultural laws in their countries. The main topics of these laws concerned the status of the farmer and the farm, agricultural finance, and inter-branch organisations. In Madagascar, SOA


(Union of agricultural organisations) was strongly involved in the organisation of agricultural service centres, particularly focusing on the method of electing farmers in the steering committees.

Lobby and advocacy is the core business of KENFAP. The Kenyan farmers’ federation engaged with the government in creating a favourable environment for agricultural sector. During the fiscal planning period, the Kenyan government called for proposals and suggestions on matters of budget share. An opportunity that KENFAP took up and insisted on improved support to the sector. KENFAP was also instrumental in the implementation of the Maputo protocol30 by the Kenyan government. This protocol increased budgetary allocation to the agricultural sector organised by the Ministry of Planning and National Development. Unfortunately in many other African countries the follow-up of the protocol related to agriculture has been less successful.

In D.R Congo farm leaders from 9 of the 11 provinces gathered in November 2010 to support the approval of the Code Agricole. This law is a necessary tool for the development of sustainable agriculture in the country. The passing of the law is a result of a long struggle of farmers’ organisation, FOPAC, REPAM, SYDIP and FAT, who were supported by the consortium Agricongo, VECO, IFDC, Agriterra, Trias, Agrisud and others. The law includes several important elements, such as family farming, exemption from import duties on all goods destined for agriculture, settlement of disputes over access to land by a committee on land rights, the financing of agriculture to establish a fund for agricultural development. This law was approved by Parliament in 2011 and is to be accepted by the President later this year. Financial management and financial services Farm leaders are increasingly convinced of the importance of strong administrative and financial management of their organisation. Good financial management enhances management capacity, accountability, good governance and leads to organisational development. The increase in the number of employees in the farmers’ organisation and the management of a higher proportion of grants requires a commitment on two major axes: • the development of accounting and administrative services • human resources management Financial administration tools have improved functionality and operability of farmers' organisations. The number of external audits commissioned by the organisations increased in number and quality during the programme (see report on work area 2 - financial management). Compliance monitoring is a key mechanism to mitigate, detect 30 The Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the Maputo Protocol, was signed in 2004. In the protocol one of the requirements for the governments is the allocation of 10% of the National Budget to the Agricultural Sector to boost this sector.


and minimise corruption, fraud and mismanagement of funds. An audit executed by Jasper Semu at UOSPA (Uganda) showed quite some irregularities. Therefore Agriterra supported the organisation to have their annual account of 2008 and 2009 audited again. In the report quite some critical observations came forward, from governance issues to internal control and accounting issues. This led to the replacement of the director and the election of a new Board of Directors. For the future development of UOSPA, Agriterra urged the organisation to give follow-up to the observations and recommendations of the auditor. Only after approval of the audited statement of 2009, Agriterra will continue its cooperation with UOSPA. SCC also provides technical and methodological support for the development of well-functioning financial management and internal control systems within the partner organisations. In the financial management projects the cooperation between partners and other relevant organisations within the field of finance and administration was strengthened. Through a more holistic approach to organisational development, combined with local presence SCC developed well-established systems for financial administration and internal control and has been able to detect and handle instances of fraud and corruption. Especially in 2009 and 2010 much attention was paid to the improvement of financial management within farmers’ organisation by Agriterra, SCC and UPA DI (see also the Work Area 2 report 2010 on agro-info.net). Seven successful training events were organised together with the British specialists of Mango (Management Accounting for Non-Governmental Organisations) in Kenya, India, Tanzania, Costa Rica, Congo, Niger and the Philippines. The training was developed round the financial management Health Check, an assessment tool which measures the financial health of farmers’ organisations by using a broad range of statements of best “healthy” practices. The impact of financial management improvements cannot be measured by the number of people participating in a training, but will definitely be shown by future healthy practices of the organisation regarding the four blocks of financial management: 1. Budgeting 2. Accounting Records 3. Financial Monitoring 4. Internal Controls In Central America, Tanzania, Congo and Niger, several organisations that participated in the training received tailor-made advice that supported them in improving their organisation’s financial health. The follow-up trajectories included a joint analysis of financial statements and qualitative assessments of their financial management practices, using the Health Check tool. Based on the results a trajectory in financial management was developed with each organisation. Mainstreaming issues AIDS is the leading cause of death in Sub-Saharan Africa and is one of the greatest challenges in reducing poverty. The epidemic has a negative impact on social and economic development with poverty being both a cause and an effect of the HIV pandemic. Both SCC and Agriterra decided the issue of HIV-AIDS should be integrated in projects and programmes of partners. High prevalence of HIV-AIDS has a major impact on farmers’ organisation, both on their staff as well as on their members.


SCC supported activities related to HIV-AIDS problems with technical assistance from their Regional Office for Eastern and Southern Africa. Since 2007 Agriterra supported the training of four staff members of farmers’ organisations in East Africa (one year training at Larenstein-Wageningen). Besides that Agriterra organised, together with Agri-ProFocus, workshops in East Africa on the topic of HIV/AIDS. Increased knowledge through the workshop and trained staff members gave the organisations input for the development of a toolkit for internal and external mainstreaming of HIV-Aids in producers’ organisations.

All agri-agencies pay attention to gender issues. Not only is 70% of all poor people female, it is also women who experience poverty most. They often do not have access to resources and are materially deprived and often do not have the power to do something about it. Gender sensitivity became interwoven in all project activities, study visits, training sessions, elections of leaders, etc. Through work area 14 the focus on women participation in project activities, as well as on addressing gender issues in the farmers’ organisations increased in order to improve both the position within the organisation and the livelihood of rural women. The essence within most of the stories harvested regarding gender issues is that women feel socially more empowered after participation in the gender focussed projects. These projects often include training exclusively for women, on social as well as economic themes. The economic benefits are often small but important for the

HIV/AIDS mainstreaming workshops The first workshop on mainstreaming HIV/AIDS was held in 2008 in Uganda. The kick-off workshop brought together about 20 participants representing producer organizations from Uganda (UOSPA, UNFFE), Kenya (KENFAP), Tanzania (Mviwata) and Zambia (ZNFU) and from agencies supporting producer organizations in the Netherlands (Agriterra, AgriProFocus, Van Hall Larenstein, Ministry of Foreign Affairs) and Kenya (Swedish Cooperative Center-Regional Office for Eastern Africa). The workshop followed a three-stage approach during which participants worked on (1) analysis and priority setting (2) developing strategies and (3) elaboration of feasible action plans for action, collaboration and learning. The mainstreaming framework was used as a guiding principle. A second trajectory workshop was held in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania in 2009, while the third workshop and final trajectory was hosted in Kenya in May 2010. HIV/AIDS awareness raising among the members was done through the meetings and field days. KENFAP integrated HIV&AIDS mainstreaming in its activities and considered food security intervention-by supporting production of nutritious vegetables, local poultry and dairy goat keeping. An action Plan was designed for external HIV/AIDS mainstreaming among MVIWATA members. The plan was implemented around the Morogoro rural market sites, Monduli (in Arusha region) and Hedaru (in Kilimanjaro region), and it focuses on two main components, namely (a) HIV/AIDS awareness & prevention; and (b) Supporting economic activities of PLWHA. UNFFE trained a total of 185 participants. They learned to address HIV/AIDS issues from a development perspective and also from a comparative advantage, whereby, as farmers, they are in position to use farming to reduce the drivers to HIV transmission and also reduce vulnerability to the impacts of AIDS on the farmers. There is now clear understanding of what HIV/AIDS is, what it can do and how it can be implemented using minimal financial resources. The trained staff and board members gained knowledge also on how to formulate HIV/AIDS workplace Policies, tailored to their own organizational needs and capacity. UOSPA has undertaken proactive activities to internally and externally mainstream HIV/AIDS in its activities by: assessing the economic costs of HIV/AIDS on the organization, developing an HIV/AIDS workplace policy, identify HIV/AIDS collaborating partners, build the competency of staff on HIV/AIDS issues and adjust its development programmes so as to benefit the affected and infected beneficiaries.


women and it provides hope for the future. The social impact of the projects is often more evident: as a result of having more knowledge, they receive more respect and have increased self esteem. They feel empowered by not being ignored anymore, and discovering they have a say as well and should be actively involved as target group in the projects. EXCERPT DESCRIPTIVE PROFILING FAA-ULE (Armenia) The score on gender is relatively low. This can be explained by the fact that the Board has no women representatives; only 10% of the members are women and 30% of the staff is female. In the strategic documents gender policies are not well worked out. Despite of several gender/women activities, the indicator does not show an improvement. However, at field level, people express that as a result of the women /gender programmes, women participate more actively in meetings, and have organised themselves in women interest groups. These groups are not directly linked with the FAA, but have a strong link with the local farmers’ organisation. As part of the membership development strategy, FAA wishes to pay special attention to the position of women and young farmers, although the current strategic plan does not specify how this should be done. Membership will not increase easily as one member of the family, usually the men, is registered on behalf of the family. Unless an exclusive women farmers’ organisation will be promoted it is not very likely that the number of female members will increase. Agriterra recommended FAA to systematically mainstream gender issues into its activities and to be more specific in its strategic and operational plans about gender policies and activities. This issue will be incorporated in the Terms of Reference for an advisory mission in 2011.

Fish farmer - Vietnam


3 Synthesis of Work areas

In order to facilitate exchange and expansion of knowledge, all 570 Farmers Fighting Poverty projects were categorised into 19 themes. These so-called work areas consisted of 17 areas that related to the work of farmers’ organisations and two institutional areas, accommodating projects carried out by the agri-agencies themselves (see annex 6). The classification in the work areas was based on the expressed needs of the farmers’ organisations and designed to identify common thematic issues, to develop solutions for broad-based implementation and to monitor the effectiveness of success cases for up-scaling. A work area manager was designated to each area to coordinate thematic development, knowledge management and dissemination within AgriCord. In the present chapter we will discuss some overall salient results of the work areas. Clustering of work areas In order to get better grip on the progress in the work areas, these have been further categorised into four more comprehensive areas. These areas also form the backbone of the second phase of Farmers Fighting Poverty. 1) organisational strengthening 2) institutional development 3) policy elaboration/advocacy 4) capacity building business development Areas 1 (Organisational strengthening and inclusiveness) and 2 (Institutional development) have to do with strengthening the functioning of an organisation as such, regardless of its mission. Area 3 (Policy elaboration and advocacy) and 4 (Business development) include the activities dealing with services to the members, i.e. the output of the organisation, which certainly depends on its mission. In addition to that, some cross-cutting concerns were identified. These are issues that are, or could be part of every project. The below presents the main achievements in the 17 ‘ former’ work areas, grouped in these four ‘ new’ thematic support areas and the cross-cutting concerns. The full report for each separate work area is to be found on www.agro-info.net > Programmes. 1) Capacity building for improved internal competences (Work areas 2: Financial management; 3: Organisational strengthening; 5: Grassroots participation) Organisational strengthening (work area 3) includes six priorities that aim to strengthen the internal competences and promote inclusiveness. During 2007-2010, work has been carried out in all the priority areas based on demand by the farmers’ organisations. These support requests (81 projects) exceeded expectations on the topics of improvement of human resources and internal communications as well as on organising SWOT and business planning sessions. The most comprehensive programme for SWOT analysis and business planning was implemented in the Maison des Paysans (MdP) in Madagascar. Thirteen other success cases, for example in Benin (project 5149), Bolivia (5299), Mali (5024), Guatemala (5205), and Peru (5140) have benefitted from support. A methodology note, Reinforcement of the Internal Capacities of FOs, was drafted by Afdi. This note aims to share the experiments and tools within the AgriCord-network.


While only 12 projects were specifically anchored in work area 2: Financial management, nearly all capacity building projects include support in order to improve book-keeping and accounting, financial controls and financial planning. In collective business transactions, members trust the farmers’ organisations to handle their money well and therefore require reliable financial management and transparency from their organisation. This is a constraint in farmers’ organisations that often do not have qualified managers and where accounting is regarded as a subordinate function only required for governmental audit purposes.

Successful training programmes were organised in Kenya, India, Tanzania, Costa Rica, Congo, Niger and the Philippines using a Health Check. By comparing the actual financial health of the farmers’ organisations with best practice, their financial management is assessed as low, medium or high risk. The impact is that the organisations become more critical towards their financial management practices and aware of essential financial management issues that need to be improved. In a “training of finance trainers”, twelve professionals from regional and national farmers’ organisations in Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Ethiopia and the Philippines were trained in this methodology to further dissemination this approach in their regions and countries. In the area of grass-roots participation (work area 5) the inclusiveness and increased membership of farmers’ organisations are promoted. Activities were based on FAO’s People’s Participation Programme (PPP), which is an approach for group formation of poor rural people. After field experiences indicated a need for promotion and increased attention to local economic initiatives, an adapted version of PPP was developed. This methodology called Promotion of Economic Initiatives through Farmers’ Participation (PEIFP) has been applied in Burkina Faso and China till now. As the name indicates, this area aims to increase the participation of the grass-roots (local) level. The specific approach for micro-projects that was discussed in I.4 is therefore also part of this area. It was implemented in Kenya and Madagascar and ‘Conseil à l’Exploitation Familiale’ (CEF) was developed and successfully applied in French speaking countries. In the implementation of the different approaches in 2007-2010, a total of 41 farmers’ organisations were supported and 12.910 self help groups were created or strengthened, which highly exceeds the planned results. The outreach is more than 600.000 participants of which 31.5% were women. 2) Institutional development: Learning how to connect

(work area 4: Institutional development) The aim of institutional development (work area 4) is twofold. On the one hand it wants to improve the strategic external positioning of a farmers’ organisation to build increased visibility and influence. On the other hand it contains activities to develop alliances with relevant private, public and donor institutions with the aim to improve service-delivery to its members. The implementation during 2007-2010 involved a total of 120 projects which worked on building formal relations with suppliers, buyers and governments and stakeholder analysis. This number is twice as high as was aimed for in the programme.


To support practitioners, a thematic course on Optimizing Performance for Producers Organisations (OPPO) was developed with Wageningen University (WUR). As part of the training, a number of institutional development tools were integrated such as: contextual analyses for identifying and analysing trends and challenges in the external world; stakeholder cooperation for operating in a dynamic agricultural

arena; and exploring opportunities for cooperation with stakeholders. These tools are currently being tested in the Great Lakes area in Africa for wider dissemination. 3) Participatory policy formulation and advocacy (Work area 1: Participatory policy formulation) Participatory policy formulation (work area 1) promotes members’ participation in the formulation of policy positions for lobbying and advocacy towards other stakeholders. The member consultations and systematisation their input by resource persons are key features of the updated methodology called Participatory Generation of Policy Proposals (PGPP). The methodology was used in a number of 44 projects with farmers’ organisations at various levels. Most farmers’ organisations find it a useful tool that brings credibility to their proposals and builds accountability because “PGPP enhances ownership by members”. Overall the targets achieved did not meet the planning in Farmers Fighting Poverty. Especially the number of formulated policy plans and the number of approved or successfully negotiated policy plans only were a third of the expected number. The main reason for this is that the promotion of participatory policy planning was to take place in close cooperation with IFAP, and encountered setback because of IFAP’s situation. Following suggestions by farmers’ organisations, a concept of a PGPP tool box has been developed though. This includes tools and materials for farmers’ organisations to conduct a cycle of two PGPP workshops and a piloting phase. The materials are now under development. 4) Agriculture, agribusiness and rural income generation

(work areas 7: Agricultural development; 8: Insurance and finance; 9: Inputs for agriculture; 10: Agricultural extension; 11: Market and chain development; 12: Research for development in agriculture; 16: Diversification in agriculture (agro-tourism); 17: Setting up a cooperative)

Livelihoods of farmers, as economic actors, depend heavily on access to remunerative markets and their position in the value chain. Activities in the work area Market and chain development (work area 11) have a broad scope. They generally aim at decreasing transaction costs, increasing the value of production, or identifying and accessing new and more profitable local, national or international markets or market segments, and corresponding chains. Operationally, farmers’ organisations work on economies of scale among their membership (in purchasing inputs, bulking and grading, sales), on increased processing, on certification and on improved marketing capacity. A total of 61 projects were implemented with a total outreach of 600.000 participants. The projects are very diverse because of the variety of farming systems, socio-political contexts, constraints and value chains. Sustainable inclusion of smallholders in demanding value chains was successfully facilitated with other value chain actors to build linkages and trust. This has reduced some of the risks that can drive up


transaction costs and exclude small farmers. The main conclusion of an exchange seminar organised by AgriCord in 2009 was that there is no blue print or one-size-fits-all solution to success in market and chain development. Entrepreneurship is about dealing with risks. It also means that the possibility of failure is always present in all business. No project can reduce all risks to zero but instead should build capacity of farmers and their enterprises to adequately assess risks and deal with them. Interventions have to be market-led and be based on thorough information from market and chain analysis. The most efficient interventions utilize available and existing financial and business development services. Rather than bypassing other chain actors or trying to take over their roles, it is more effective to facilitate collaborative arrangements. Farmers should be considered as clients and services should be monitored and provided on demand-driven basis. As we wrote at the start of the programme the element of agricultural development and crops (work area 7) “comprises many activities of agri-agencies that do targeted work with farmers’ groups on the technical aspects of cultivating certain crops.” With Afdi in the driving seat of this work area, much work has been done on the development of the ‘Conseil à l’Exploitation Familiale’ (CEF) toolbox, supporting farmers’ organisations who want to offer their members services to improve production and profitability. One of the most frequently used tools to accomplish this is the production and marketing of improved seed material. All participating organisations train ‘paysans semenciers’ (sowing peasants), who in turn train other members of their organisation. Thus, the Maison des Paysans (MdP) in Madagascar trained 50 farmer-to-farmer trainers. By doing so, they succeeded in distributing and selling 27 tonnes of improved seeds. In addition, 798 farmers started experimental plots in order to amplify the diffusion of these new varieties.

The outreach in this work area amounted to almost 225.000 people, 31% of which were women. All projects in this work area took place in Africa, which interestingly are with organisations in countries that are often neglected in development aid, such as the Fédération des producteurs du Fouta Djalon in Guinée-Conakry and the Association Tchadienne des Acteurs du Développement Rural in Chad. The projects were

frequently implemented in joint endeavours with other agri-agencies, notably UPA DI, FERT and Agriterra. This also stimulated diffusion among the agri-agencies: both in the field and, for systematisation purposes, in a workshop on the activities of agricultural advisory services. This was done in December 2009 in Paris. One outcome was that the ‘Pôle CEF’ space on www.inter-reseaux.org would be used for the documentation and exchange of best CEF practices. When looking at basic criteria, activities in this work area were efficient: 86% of planned outreach was achieved, with expenditures that amounted to a mere 53% of the original work area budget. The main objective of the work area banking and credit (work area 8) is to improve access to financial services for people living in rural areas. This includes not only access to saving and credit products, but also to (micro)insurance facilities. The agri-agencies have supported a wealth of experiences in the field of credit. The experience with micro-insurances is more limited. Farmers’ organisations still consider the efforts to establish a mutual insurance programme too much as a project, and not as a potentially profitable effort. Broadly speaking, AgriCord wanted to initiate fifteen projects (the original ambition of 8 projects was quickly expanded) in the banking and credit sector, and six with insurance companies. In this way, we targeted to give 200.000 farmers access to financial services, twice as much as in the programme outline. With a fairly modest


gender budget (25%) we promised to involve 60% women in the projects. At the end of the program, seventeen projects had been implemented (5 in insurance, 12 in banking and credit, so less than expected). The implementing organisations have given 230.000 persons access to financial services, 15% more than aimed for. There were good opportunities for grass-roots participation using Savings and Credit Cooperatives (SACCO) and Village Savings and Loan Association (VSLA) methodologies (see also I.4). It becomes clear that an investment of € 20 per participant yields an average twenty times this amount via loans. Once farmers are part of the micro-finance system, the generally keep benefitting from it years afterwards. The Micro Finance programme specifically aims at allowing poor women to access SACCOS. This results in a steady growth of SACCOS members. NEFSUN for instance showed a growth of about 200-250 women who became member of the SACCOS each year. The stories from Nepal, Cameroon, Philippines, Cambodia, Uganda and Thailand and other project sites, all reveal the impact of access to credit in the lives of entrepreneurs. As a general result, twice as much was achieved than was planned. In spite of this, we feel that there is still room for improvement. For instance in building inspiring alliances to move ahead in this very interesting area. The farmers’ organisations play a vital role in the supply of inputs and provision of related services to their members to increase productivity, make it more sustainable, and improve food security. Work area 9: Inputs for agriculture included 59 projects that contributed directly or indirectly to these topics. In fact, most cooperatives, and their unions and federations, are somehow involved in input supply for their members. No solution was developed, nevertheless promising initiatives have been identified, such as the so-called input shops, where inputs are sold in small quantities so that farmers can buy an amount of inputs that corresponds to their financial capacity. Another initiative is that some producer organisations have access to credits which allows them to pre-finance the growing campaign of the members31. Most, but not all input supply services were part of projects in Africa and often integrated activities in large programmes in West and East Africa. One example is the From Thousands to Millions programme. Farmer-to-farmer extension (work area 10) systems are based on a network of lead farmers, who innovate, test and share results through an extension group. Farmer Field Schools are a typical ‘peer-to-peer’ approach to facilitate learning and innovation. These and other forms of agricultural education were set-up during Farmers Fighting Poverty. Supported activities cover the technical aspects of crop cultivating and of animal husbandry. Experience gained during the field work suggests that integration of marketing support is important and will increase the adoption of innovations. Conaprocam in Cameroun (5184), UAR in Togo (5075), MdP in Madagascar (5146), RCM in the Mediterranean countries (5007) and FFPD in Guinea are good examples. Farmers Fighting Poverty supported participatory development of research agendas by farmers’ organisations, as well as linking farmers’ organisations at all levels to agricultural research for development. Four of the six projects in the work area Research for development in agriculture (work area 12) were ESFIM (‘Empowering Smallholder Farmers in Markets’) projects in the Philippines, Kenya, Peru and Uruguay. The activities consisted of workshops and consultative meetings with farmers to develop a research agenda and instruments leading to greater stability of income and increased agricultural production diversity. E-trading systems were developed to increase farmers’ access to markets. 31 An example of this is to be found on the webpage http://www.inter-reseaux.org/IMG/pdf_Commande_groupe_de_pommes_de_terre_V2-1.pdf


The Solution ‘Setting the research agenda’ was developed together with the International Centre for development oriented Research in Agriculture (ICRA). It lists the sequence of interventions and training moments that are needed to build linkages between farmers’ organisations, research institutes and extension organisations. It also includes ways to enhance the staff capacity of these organisations so they can articulate their priorities and needs with respect to farmer-led agricultural research. This solution has not yet been implemented in a concrete project. Diversification in agriculture (work area 16) explores rural income generating opportunities other than agriculture. Activities have been developed in two main areas: rural tourism and forestry. Eight projects were developed in rural tourism, six of which are operational and receive tourists: Vietnam, Ecuador, Bolivia, Peru, Brazil and Madagascar. The new locations in Kenya and Tanzania are expected to start in 2011. “Let them come!” is the name of the agro-tourism toolbox developed, which contains a business plan manual, marketing manual and M&E tool. Four forestry projects were financed. One in Ecuador enabled a beekeeping association to participate in fairs for marketing of products derived from honey. Another supported the Forest Connect Facility, a web-facility in Mali involving 26 producer organisations that links small and medium forest enterprises with markets and service providers. An inventory of farmers’ organisations involved in timber and non-timber forest products (NTFP) was completed. In sustainable production forestry, a twinning approach was used in three projects that were initiated in Ethiopia and Vietnam to support the development of forest producers’ associations.

As part of work area 17: Processing of agricultural products bottom-up initiatives of vertical chain integration were supported, such as the establishment of farmer-led initiatives in the agro-food chain (processing, trading). Typical activities in this respect are cooperative processing and marketing of fruits and vegetables, establishment of auctions, improvement of product quality and organisational strengthening needed for increased bargaining power. The achieved number of 30 developed business initiatives and 153 new business plans were much higher than expected. The remarkable number of business plans developed during 2007-2010 is partly the result of the successful Farmers in Business Challenge contest. This was a business plan competition for agricultural cooperatives. In Niger, the Union des Coopératives des Producteurs du Niébé Wafakay is in the process of setting up a plant for processing of peanuts into oil and cake. Farmer-led tourism companies in Bolivia, Peru, Vietnam and Madagascar are successfully entering the international market. One of the winners from the Business Plan competition is producing and selling a bottled aromatic drink in Ecuador. A rural women association in Uruguay has established a cooperative dedicated to the production and marketing of traditional food that includes a wide range of jams, fruit and vegetables in syrup, liquor, bakery, chocolates and pickles. A group of Dutch farmers have become shareholders together with the dairy farmers’ cooperative in Mbeya – Tanzania. These are just a few out of many examples of farmer-led business development.


The results achieved do not entirely disclose the quality of the initiatives and how agri-agencies have been able to facilitate financial support services. The lesson learned is that measurable indicators such as jobs created, increase in income of producers and financial ratios of farmer controlled companies are to be included in future monitoring. In cooperation with ILO, the famous MATCOM series for cooperative management training has been updated. They will be validated in 2011 under a new name: MyCoop. A training module on business planning has also been developed, which will be fine-tuned for a practical training. The publication ‘Starting a cooperative’ was translated in several languages, including Russian (copies can be downloaded at www.agriterra.org). PROJECT REPORT Linking small-scale coffee farmers to better markets - 08pcc-5115 Pachamama: Ethiopia (OROMIA), Guatemala (Manos Campesinas), México (La Union Regional), Nicaragua (PRODECOOP) and Perú (COCLA) Pachamama Coffee is a federated cooperative based in Davis, California, owned by 5 producers’ cooperatives representing more than 100.000 small-scale farmers in Ethiopia (OROMIA), Guatemala (Manos Campesinas), México (La Union Regional), Nicaragua (PRODECOOP) and Perú (COCLA). Pachamama was established to efficiently market its members’ roasted coffee in North America, primarily to consumer cooperatives, cafés and end consumers directly via its website (www.pachamama.coop). Pachamama’s mission is to provide customers with premium coffee in the most direct way possible and, by doing so, improve the lives of small-scale farmers and their families. Pachamama aspires to empower and educate cooperative communities by connecting producers with consumers. The project would help Pachamama to strengthen and increase its core business in North America while retaining outright ownership for its members. In the year 2008 Pachamama was the winner of the Global Marketplace Competition of the World Bank. As a winner Pachamama received USD$ 179.000 to increase the budget of the project “Linking small-scale coffee farmers to better markets” funded by Agriterra. These funds have been made available during the year 2009 and permitted Pachamama to increase the depth and scope of activities while keeping the projects with the same activities as planned. This project has also triggered the process of coffee farmers having their coffee certified as "carbon neutral" through the Environmental Resources Management (ERM) Fund (a group of environmental consultancies in England). They have obtained a commitment from ERM to invest a further $ 125,000 for their business. Thanks to this two year project Pachamama could develop two websites, instead of only one. One website will be used for the “track and trace” system, through which consumers will be able to enter a code found on every bag of Pachamama Coffee that will link them, via the internet, to information about who produced a particular coffee and where (with photos and videos). Via this website consumers will be able to purchase coffee directly from the producers corresponding to the photos and videos. In addition, through this website the consumers will be also able to “tip” the small-scale coffee farmers. A tip of only twenty-five cents for a great cup of coffee would increase the production margin significantly, and would support our intention of “de-commodifying” the high quality coffee produced by small-scale farmers. The second website that Pachamama is producing is based on the concept of “Community Supported Agriculture” (CSA). This concept, which originated in Europe, has gained a lot of popularity in the U.S. over the past few years. This represents a very direct way to support small-scale producers, and share risk. For consumers it is an opportunity to get to know the people behind their products, and create a sense of community, knowing that with their support, the small-scale farmer that they are supporting will be able to continue to produce high quality products on their own land. Through this CSA website, coffee consumers will be able to create and participate in virtual social communities supporting specific groups of small-scale farmers by purchasing at least a portion of their harvest every year. For Pachamama, this also basically represents another distribution channel (more direct) for its members’ coffee. More than 125 small coffee producers have participated in the production of web sites and have learned about how to market coffee through the electronic trading system.


5) Cross-cutting concerns (work areas 13: Other services, including HIV/AIDS; 14: Gender mainstreaming; 15: Information and Communication Technology)

The main objectives within the work area Information and Communication Technology (work area 15) are to create economic opportunities and to facilitate access to information by deploying information and communication technologies for rural development. As part of the MISTOWA programme with IFDC a number of telecentres was set-up in order to improve the information provision to traders and farmers. The information provided was mainly related to market-price information. While making use of a combination of new media such as internet, mobile phone in combination with traditional communication channels such as paper and face-to-face channels, the aim is to collect and diffuse reliable and real-time market-information. On the basis of that farmers and traders can work directly together without the intervention of any (costly) middlemen. A positive result of such information is to be observed in Ivory Coast where an evaluation of such centres shows an increase of 40% in the price farmers receive for their produce as compared to before the information centres were set up. The centres also function as a centre for exchange of information between farmers and different levels of farmers’ organisations. This approach was also present in the centres set up by CIOEC (Bolivia) and CRCR (Mali) in close cooperation with IICD. Another interesting development is that of CoopWorks software. In 2006 this was developed with support of FAO and Agriterra for dairy cooperatives in Kenya. By 2008 the Kenyan Coffee Producers organisation applied for support to develop a module specifically for coffee. This support was provided by the Finnish government in cooperation with Agriterra. Though the marketing of CoopWorks does not evolve as hoped, all the evaluations that were done show its potential. It is relatively cheap to implement, and the first signs of impact are on the professionalization of the cooperatives. On the basis of the registered information they improve their stock management and get a better idea of cash flow and thus possibility to provide loans. This in turn strengthens their relation with their members. Gender mainstreaming (work area 14) is an overall cross-cutting concern in the implementation of the Farmers Fighting Poverty programme. Also in some cases (upon explicit demand of the organisations) separate projects addressed specific gender issues. The work area monitors the achievement of 30% of female participation and 30% financing for gender equality and empowerment of women. Workshops conducted were the IFAP women’s committee meeting in Dublin, where delegates from Africa and Asia exchanged experiences and lessons learned from their own countries. In the Mediterranean region (2009), a seminar was organised on promoting the participation of women in farmers’ organisations. A successful seminar on women entrepreneurship was organised in 2009. In general, the number of participating women as well as the budget share directed to women have increased. Budgets are mainly allocated to training activities. The progress during 2007-2010 is promising with outreach of 37% women and an actual funding of 25% for gender equality. This is an important achievement because women empowerment results in higher self-esteem and develops capacity to take up economic activities. Twenty-six gender-specific projects were implemented mostly on promotion of women’s economic activities including social empowerment training. A good example is a women’s wing project of FFA-AP in India, where women are first trained in social, health and family issues and once they start forming groups, they were trained on economic activities. A methodology called ‘AgriFem: Strengthening gender equality’ was developed in 2010. Elements of the solution such as promotion of economic activities for women have been implemented by various organisations. Draft modules have been prepared on ‘How to set up a women's organisation’ (based on experiences in setting up of a


women's organisation in Belarus). These modules were then tailored to strengthen the women's wing of FFA-AP in India. A draft module is also available on gender-focused business planning, which analyses women’s access to production resources, available time, control over benefits and decision making. Farmers’ organisations are concerned with HIV/AIDS (work area 13) in countries were the prevalence is high. To enhance the competence of farmers’ organisations in HIV/Aids mainstreaming, an action-learning approach ‘Building capacities to respond to the HIV/Aids epidemic’ and a toolkit to support farmers’ organisations were designed. During three workshops the participants developed action plans making use of these tools. The progress made by the participating farmers’ organisations can be summarized as follows: • Internal capacity and understanding about HIV/AIDS mainstreaming was enhanced • Farmers’ organisations have a clearer picture of their role and revised their

strategies into indirect responses. • All participating organisations established a HIV/AIDS focal point and increased

networking with HIV/Aids organisations assisting their affected members. A publication including a toolkit and good practices and lessons learned by the participants will be issued in 2011.

Rice stamping - Bolivia


HARVESTED STORY Plan d'appui au renforcement des capacités des organisations paysannes de la filiere horticole - 08fy-5107

Dutch expertise crucial for onion farmers in Niger Thanks to the advice and stem seed from Dutch onion specialist De Groot & Slot, a large number of onion farmers in Niger have considerably improved their production of onion seed. Horticulturalist Ali Adamou for example expanded the cultivation of onion seed from several square meters to 0,5 hectares with excellent quality and a good profit. And he is not the only one. All 76 members of Ali’s cooperation Yoreize Koira have adopted the new, more productive way of cultivating onions. This cooperation is not the only one to share in the success, approximately 20 farmers in the surroundings switched to this production method and enjoy its benefits. Since 2006 the Yoreize Koira cooperation has been involved in the project which is implemented by the national horticultural organisation FCMN-Niya of which Yoreize Kora is a member. Ali Amadou, father of 11, grows onion seed as well as various vegetables, under which onions. Before the project started, it was not easy for Ali to obtain onion seed of good quality; he often needed to get indebted with the merchant selling the seed in order to be able to buy the onion seed. And the quality of the seeds sometimes was low. Often, not all the seeds would germ and Ali then was unable to plant all of the land he had attributed to growing onions that season. Also the crop had many shooters that had lower quality and sell for less. Often, for the abovementioned reasons the crop would not be profitable. In 2005, Agriterra brought FCMN-Niya in contact with De Groot & Slot. The Dutch specialist in onion and shallot seeds was looking to deploy their knowledge to the benefit of others. Since the start of this cooperation, De Groot & Slot offers assistance on the improvement of the onion cultivation in Niger and on the set up of commercial onion seed production. Since 2006 the members of Yoreize Koira are growing onion seed with technical support from De Groot & Slot. The exchange of knowledge and of experience with De Groot & Slot inspired Mr. Ali to start experimenting with other breeds as well. When this proved successful he preserved these modifications to his traditional way of cultivating. By using the stem seed of De Groot & Slot and their technical support, the onion seed production has by now been improved both in quality and in quantity. The modifications to the cultivation as Mr. Ali has applied in his exploitation, not only affect the production of onion seed, but also the onion production. The success of the onions and the cultivation of onion seed is not limited to the cooperation in Yoreize Koira but also the surrounding villages have adopted the new cultivation methods. In the entire area now the cooperation is selling seed produced by its own members. The production is being checked by FCMN-Niya in order to guarantee its high quality. Meanwhile technical support on the cultivation process is provided almost exclusively by local instructors who have been trained by De Groot & Slot.

71 FFP: Funding & Expenditure

IV FFP: Funding & Expenditure

1 Funding

The funding of Farmers Fighting Poverty has been thoroughly analysed in the previous report (2009: p. 67-70). Neither the funding nor the analysis has changed much afterwards. Agriterra did not succeed in attracting substantial contributions from other donors than the Dutch government. This is true for funds directly channelled through Agriterra (table 14, row 1a) and for the so-called heat map funds in the table (row 2) (funds provided to farmers´ organisations in project arrangements, co-financed by Agriterra and third parties). This is disappointing, even more so because Agriterra, AgriCord and the Dutch government put much effort in this. These efforts already started in 2006 with the Farmers Fighting Poverty conference in Arnhem, and were followed up in numerous contacts with governments and international organisations. The unfortunate fact that no additional funds were mobilised, led to the ‘funding gap’ in 2010 mentioned earlier in this report. The 2009-2010 campaign that we launched to mobilise funds could not compensate this situation, despite the fact that the online petition on www.farmersfightingpoverty.org was signed by more than 14,000 people (July 2011; we had hoped for 20,000 a year by August 2010). This created the situation that many of the farmers’ organisations faced a grim prospect. In order to ascertain where ‘emergency support’ was indispensable, Agriterra did an analysis of its farmers’ organisations (‘clients’ in Agriterra terminology). Thanks to the generosity of the Dutch government an additional € 1.150.000 was made available for support to the organisations identified. Of the funds available for projects and missions in 2010, Agriterra even managed to transfer a much larger share directly to the organisations (project costs) Table 13 Funding Agriterra 2010 Plan Realisation Realisation

as % of plan Missions and events 1.895.630 993.210 52% Project costs 1.497.804 2.022.087 135% Source: Agriterra management team (MT147) As a result of this bridging support, no farmers’ organisation has had to close operations, which is a very positive outcome. The other agri-agencies were more successful and raised 12% more than expected (row 1b). The other positive surprise was the large contribution of the farmers’ organisations consisting of ‘own money’ and other funds mobilised by them, which doubled the expected volume; but also project contributions of third parties, besides IFDC, FAO, SNV that were are mentioned separately in Annex 1. This can be interpreted in a positive way, saying that donors are directly funding farmers’ organisations more, enabling them to contribute more to their projects. Instead of passing the funds through agri-agencies or NGOs it seems that more funds are directly channelled to farmers’ organisations. That would be good news! In our prologue we referred to a recently started World-Bank-IFAD-AgriCord inventory that will provide a baseline reference of support to farmers´ organisations, allowing us to give more evidence of a hopefully growing contribution in the years to come.


Table 14 Funding planned and raised in 2007-2010

Income sources 2007-2010 According to plan FFP 2007-2010 (€)

Raised (€)

1. Core programme funding 114.750.000 84.264.586 1.a Contributions via Agriterra(incl Gates) 86.063.000 51.304.050 1.b Contributions through other agri-agencies(incl EU) 28.687.000 32.960.536

2. Other contributions ('Heat map') 40.000.000 6.551.924 3. Producer organisations’ (PO)

contributions, incl. third parties 10.908.637 19.781.418

Total € 165.658.637 € 110.597.928 Source: Annex 1 - Monitoring Protocol Although agriculture is certainly back on the agenda, the share of heat map funding was much lower than expected. Some of the arrangements made that were part of the heat map are worth mentioning though. Agriterra participated in the ambitious Thousands to Millions (1000+) programme of IFDC and the West African Farmer Network (ROPPA) in West Africa. This programme improved the well-being, productivity and sustainability of almost 400.000 farming families. It proved the possibilities for farmers’ organisations to service their members in getting access to markets with improved products (for more on IFDC see chapter I.4). Agriterra contributed the considerable amount of 2.5 million, which was partly channelled to ROPPA and partly to IFDC. The latter did not coincide with Agriterra’s policy of exclusively funding membership-based organisations, and meant that in some areas it was IFDC rather than ROPPA that took the lead when it came to the creation of ‘pôles d’entreprise agricoles’. The three parties involved (IFDC, ROPPA and Agriterra) agreed that this was a learned lesson and that Agriterra should not directly fund IFDC or similar non-membership organisations. Likewise, we learned a lot from our cooperation with SNV. Mostly because it proved to be a good mix of project funds and specialised advisory support. Agriterra provided funds and specialised AgriPool advisory support, combined with the presence of SNV advisors in the field who could directly backstop the different farmers’ organisations (see chapter II.3). From a funding perspective, the SNV arrangement is interesting. Though Agriterra and SNV also have the same main donor, they cooperate without the problem of cross-funding. All activities, funding and advisory services, are directly contracted with the farmers’ organisations as part of a whole encompassing plan. See for further details chapter II.3. In spite of a lack of conclusive evidence if the flow of funds to farmers’ organisations is indeed increasing, Agriterra already changed its strategy and will adapt its organisation to the reality and experience of the past years. In view of the enormous difficulties to raise the interest of other donors to contribute through Agriterra (or AgriCord) to the Farmers Fighting Poverty programme, Agriterra will focus its activities on a smaller group of clients, and no longer aims to serve all major representative rural membership organisations in the developing world. By gearing its support to three specialised themes, Agriterra aims to direct the funds and support as focussed as possible, to achieve the highest impact possible. Those teams are: • agri-business: assisting farmer-led enterprises in a management change or growth

acceleration/market diversification and link them with financial institutions • grass-roots entrepreneurship: assisting general farmers’ organisations in servicing

their members on the way to entrepreneurship • advocacy and innovation: assisting farmers’ organisations in developing their

innovative activities and short-track lobby efforts to get access to national and international grant schemes.


2 Expenditures

Table 15 below shows the total planned and realised expenditures for the amounts obtained through the different back-donors of the agri-agencies. Funds obtained from DGIS were planned to also be partly used in projects of other agri-agencies. These project funds did not pass through the accounts of these agri-agencies, but were in most cases disbursed directly by Agriterra to the farmers’ organisations. In Farmers Fighting Poverty the requested contribution from DGIS was € 86.063.000 (€ 62.394.870 + € 23.668.130). The expected contribution of other back donors through the other agri-agencies was completely realised (108%). In 2010, requested support from farmers’ organisations was much higher than the funds available. Allocations to new projects were therefore limited, and expenditure on existing projects were downscaled. Table 15 Planned and realised expenditures DGIS 2010

2010 Plan FFP 2007-2010

(€)

Commmitments 2007-2009 and requests 2010

(source: logframes)

(€)

Realised (€)

Realised related to Plan FFP

%

Agriterra from DGIS € 62.394.870 € 44.425.729 € 39.377.405 63,1%

agri-agencies from DGIS € 23.668.130 € 13.996.027 € 11.175.128 47,2%

agri-agencies from own back donor € 28.687.000 € 66.056.837 € 31.011.855 108,1%

Total € 114.750.000 € 124.478.593 € 81.564.388 71,1% Source: Annex 1 – Monitoring Protocol The total cost of DGIS supported projects in 2010 amount to € 5.448.638 (see table 16). In 2010 Agriterra received an advance payment of DGIS of €7.321.736 (€ 946.762 (19-02-2010), € 3.200.000 (23-02-2010) and another € 3.174.974 (25-06-2010). Expenses to be claimed in 2010 are € 5.448.638. In total, an amount of € 51.150.000 was allocated by DGIS for the period 2007-2010 and 99% of this amount was realised. The balance was € 597.467, of which € 204.000 will be allocated to finalisation of the projects 2010 which has been done in the first months of 2011. Table 16 Claimed expenses and balance DGIS Statement of expenses for DGIS

TOTAL 2010 2009 2008 2007

Total costs 52.618.822 6.650.483 19.828.002 15.864.903 10.275.434 Received interest (DGIS) -347.654 -43.376 -131.491 -97.293 -75.494 Funding third parties (*) -714.587 -250.406 -279.450 -135.515 -49.216 Funding EU -891.264 -891.264 DGIS (IOB evaluation) -140.000 -21.137 -118.863 Administration costs capital (10% of profit from interest) 27.216 4.338 13.149 9.729

Expenses to be claimed 50.552.533 5.448.638 19.311.347 15.641.824 10.150.724 Balance statement Balance previous year 1.275.631 -738.176 -964.276 0 Expenses to be claimed 50.552.533 5.448.638 19.311.347 15.641.824 10.150.724 Advance payment by DGIS -51.150.000 -7.321.736 -17.297.540 -15.415.724 -11.115.000 Balance 597.467- 597.467- 1.275.631 -738.176 -964.276 Source: Agriterra annual financial statement 2010


When looking at the expenditure per agri-agency, we see that all agri-agencies except SCC and CSA have received support from DGIS, varying from 25% to well over 50% of their total available budget for the farmer fighting poverty programme. Overall, DGIS supported 62% of the programme while 38% was supported through other back donors. Table 17 Dependence on DGIS funding of agri-agencies involvement in FFP Expenditure Realisation

own contribution

€

Realisation DGIS funds

€

Realisation - total

€

DGIS of total %

Agriterra 1.922.604 39.377.405 41.300.009 95%

Afdi 3.933.004 4.315.960 8.248.964 52%

FERT 4.677.255 1.521.927 6.199.183 25%

Trias 3.866.929 2.538.296 6.405.224 40%

UPA DI 6.752.604 2.061.659 8.814.262 23%

AgriCord 438.262 737.287 1.175.548 63%

SCC 8.756.877 0 8.756.877 0%

CSA 0 0 0 - Finland 664.321 0 664.321 0% TOTAL 31.011.855 50.552.533 81.564.388 62% Source: Annex 1 – Monitoring Protocol Table 18 below shows the division of expenditures on the main spending categories. It shows the planned and realised amounts as well as the relative percentage per budget category. Comparing the percentages, five aspects are especially worth mentioning. Table 18 Planned and realised expenditure 2007-2010

farmer missions

advise missions &

days

consultant missions & days

events projects admin. costs

total

PLANNED

Plan FFP - DGIS 4.938.725 7.892.230 2.341.520 635.490 62.508.382 7.746.653 86.063.000

Other donors(*) 1.646.203 5.047.275 2.341.520 635.490 15.410.452 3.606.060 28.687.000

TOTAL planned 6.584.928 12.939.505 4.683.040 1.270.980 77.918.834 11.352.713 114.750.000

percent 5,7% 11,3% 4,1% 1,1% 67,9% 9,9% 100,0% REALISED

DGIS 2.005.769 8.916.895 1.674.780 1.030.623 32.637.601 4.286.864 50.552.533

Other donors 610.609 7.353.908 1.640.502 122.465 20.562.701 721.669 31.011.855

TOTAL realised 2.616.378 16.270.803 3.315.283 1.153.088 53.200.303 5.008.533 81.564.388

percent 3,2% 19,9% 4,1% 1,4% 65,2% 6,1% 100,00% (*) Funding of other back donors through agri-agencies (including Agriterra) Source: www.agro-info.net Overall, the expenditures are lower than foreseen and this affects all aspects of the division of expenditures. For instance, the total amount transferred to farmers’ organisations is € 53 million, while € 78 million was planned. This is logical in view of the funding gap that existed right from the start of the programme and that was not bridged during the programme implementation. The efficiency of the programme is reflected in the administrative costs of 6,1%, which is much lower than expected. This percentage might be somewhat influenced because of the accelerated spending of the DGIS contribution, discussed in the previous activity report (page 67-70). Because the funds were largely exhausted by 2010, the


focus during 2010 was on the provision of advisory services on which no administrative costs are calculated. However, this situation can only have slightly influenced the final percentage. This illustrates that Farmers Fighting Poverty funds were handled efficiently. The relative share that was spent on farmer-to-farmer missions is lower than planned. This was already the case in the previous years, whereas we actually wanted to put more emphasis on this type of expert exchange. The amount spent is € 2.6 million which is much lower (52%) than the budgeted amount. This means the available budgets would have allowed for far more missions, though we already concluded in the Chapter II.3, that although the actual volume of these missions did fall short of expectations, the number of farmers mobilised in missions and events did meet the objective. In order to increase the quality of the available AgriPoolers, Agriterra decided to express an ambitious long term goal for AgriPool (ambition 2015): “The pool of experts will be improved and arranged in such a way that for every request for advice from a farmers’ organisation somebody can be found. The international exchange between farmers and other development organisations will rely strongly on support from AgriPool experts” (priority 9 in Year Plan 2010). Thirdly, for 2010 we adjusted the parameters of our planning and focussed more on participation of farmers in events. Looking at the percentage of expenditures on events, it shows that these are higher (1,4%) than planned (1,1%), mainly due to a shift in the spending of DGIS funds. In II.3 it was already shown that the number of farmers participating in events was twice as high as the planned number. Fourthly, the percentage spent on own advisory desk-work and missions (by agri-agency personnel) is much higher than planned. This can be explained by the fact that all agri-agencies, except Agriterra, have staff ‘in the field’. Fifthly, project expenditure, which is the total amount transferred directly to the farmers’ organisation, is relatively the same as what was planned. The share used for direct project support is 65% of the total expenditure, while the planned percentage was 67,9%. In the first three years the share exceeded 70%, but because DGIS funds were practically exhausted by 2010 and fixed costs remained at the same level, proportionately less money was available for direct project funding in 2010.

77 Conclusions & Recommendations

V Conclusions & Recommendations

How can one tell the story of an 81 million euro spent by agri-agencies in development cooperation? Was it worthwhile? What was achieved with the money? Was it spent through the right channels, transferred to the right people and organisations? What does this part of development cooperation mean as compared to the billions spent by others on development cooperation? To start with the latter question: The agri-agencies jointly took care of 0,033% of the Official Development Assistance (ODA) during the period 2007-2010 in the Farmers Poverty Programme. With such relatively small input, we have to be modest about the possible impact. But then again, we do have a very strong focus, which helps to have considerable impact in that specific area: the organised farming sector in developing countries. This brings us to the question whether the money was spent through the right channel and to the right people. We are convinced the answer is yes. On numerous occasions we have defended our choice for farmers’ organisations with the argument that they represent the majority of the economic active population in developing countries. Our choice to work with farmers’ organisations has to do with the causal relation between the existence of strong associations and the democratic content of societies, the growth of the economy and the distribution of income and capital. Collective action of farmers, and the role of farmers’ organisations, has become widely recognised in recent development thinking. At the start of the Farmers Fighting Poverty programme the farmers’ organisations represented 19% of the total agricultural economic active population which consist of 1.3 billion farmers and peasants worldwide. During Farmers Fighting Poverty, the farmers’ organisations the agri-agencies work with experienced a growth of 3 million new members. This is an average 12,5% increase in membership. The growth in Africa is most impressive. In two consecutive years we witnessed an increase of 25% in membership in Africa. As a result of these over 3 million newly organised farmers in the Farmers Fighting Poverty programme, the percentage of organised farmers worldwide, has gone up with 0,2%. These telling figures only come to life when expressed in individual stories. We collected 200 stories (33% above target!) during these four years. This collection can be seen as a random survey among the 4.589.643 stories that could have been harvested, this being the number of participants in the projects. A much higher number than we could ever have hoped for. Remember Pramila from Nepal, one of the 230.000 persons that gained access to financial services thanks to Farmers Fighting Poverty. She and her husband built up a farm that provides a decent live for her family with four children. The direct benefits from the programme for a woman like Pramila are valued at € 21,30, the average benefit at sub-national level. An investment that seems modest, but that can have large and life changing effects. For instance in the case of Pramila this benefit came in the form of a training which allowed her to take full advantage of the opportunities her credit and savings cooperative brought her in the form of loans. Her organisation could in turn lend out twenty times the amount that her organisation received from the Farmers Fighting Poverty programme. Each of the 4.589.643 participants will have their own story of change to tell. The stories all find their origin in the 570 projects we implemented, with 220 organisations in 60 countries. More than 60% of the activities took place in Africa. We are also proud of having involved over 39% women in the projects. These figures are even more impressive in view of the fact that we defined to involve 30% less people in


the projects, with a funding that was expected to be a third higher than we actually have had at our disposal. The agri-agencies implemented the programme with 81 million instead of the 114 million Euros that were envisaged. Due to the increased outreach and the lower total amount available, funds became spread more thinly, so the direct benefits to the project participants became smaller. Our indirect impact therefore could have been bigger. We could for instance have assisted Pramila’s SACCO to negotiate linkages with other financial institutions that provide larger loans to people like Pramila. As a result of the initial project she now wants to expand her business. This being said, we do not want to downplay any of the achieved results. We feel that we have been successful in supporting farmers like Pramila and organisations like her SACCO. Farmers’ organisations built for example twice as many external linkages with buyers, suppliers, banks and other institutions than planned. Such linkages are indispensible in spurring up economic development. Building linkages with other organisations was one of the targets that was aspired to in the Farmers Fighting Poverty programme. At the start of the programme we did not know with which organisation, we would undertake which projects in which countries. Therefore, we defined nineteen main thematic areas (work areas), which accommodated 61 targets by which all activities could be grouped and monitored. We for instance wanted to have 250 policy plans to be elaborated, improve the financial management of 45 organisations, have 7 new agro-tourism travel destinations and establish 24 telecentres with farmers’ organisations. Thirty-four of these targets were achieved and the overall achievement of the 61 targets is 67% above plan. For instance, in the programme 12.910 self-help groups were formed, whereas 2.750 new groups were foreseen. Likewise, we planned 5 HIV/AIDS projects, but this topic was the focus of 13 projects. The mainstreaming of gender also was successful. The original goal was that 30% of the participants involved would be female. Results show we managed to increase this share even to 39% and women participation has become part of every project. The same goes for the mainstreaming of a value-chain approach in many projects. This meant each initiative would be farmer-led with a clear market-orientation: farmers look at what the market requests and they calculate the actual cost of their product. As a result the price they ask for their product is better and fairer. We witnessed collective risk-management to undo the effects of climate change. These are very good achievements considering the fact that the funding level was one third lower than originally expected. Only in the area of participatory policy planning, we feel our performance was lower than what could have been expected. More money was spent than was foreseen in the design of the programme design, but less was achieved. This has much to do with what probably was the biggest setback of this period: the bankruptcy of the International Federation of Agricultural Producers (IFAP). We had entrusted much faith in IFAP as implementer of a huge advocacy sub-programme that would increase the capacity of farmers’ organisations to consult their members, come up with urgent issues and have these elaborated into advocacy trajectories with the help of scholars. By embedding this programme into an international player like IFAP, it would considerably improve the policy input from developing countries in international advocacy with governments and intergovernmental institutions. The fall of IFAP affected our approach of development cooperation that was carefully engineered by entrenching agri-agencies, farmers’ organisations and their respective federative bodies, like IFAP and AgriCord. AgriCord did show strong growth, involving more OECD farmers’ organisations as associated members and one new agri-agency, CSA Belgium. ACODEA Spain was formally accepted in AgriCord in 2011. In the process of attaining the aforementioned targets, we bring in project funding and advice as our services. By doing so we strive to strengthen the farmers’

79 Conclusions & Recommendations

organisations, the very raison d’être of the agri-agencies. We measure the strength of the farmers’ organisations on eight crucial aspects that regard the relations of the organisation with their members and the outside world as well as their internal functioning. We also monitor their ability to attract more members and be financially more autonomous. On the latter two aspects most progress is found. Farmers’ organisations steadily attract more members, which is a very good indicator of their performance and the fact that the farmers experience the strength of being organised. Apparently they see their investment by means of their membership fee, back in the results and services their organisation provides to them, which they could never have achieved individually. It is equally positive that the organisations proved to be able to diversify their sources of income. In spite of more funds channelled to them by donors, which generally would increase their dependency, they showed the ability to tap into more sources of income. And with that ability they can make themselves more autonomous. This independence became reassuringly evident in 2010 when the agri-agencies disbursed far less than the years before. This fact did not lead to the disappearance of any of these organisations. It demonstrates once again the rightness of the choice for these organisations that existed before development aid started and will continue to exist without it. On the other aspects of organisational strengthening the overall picture is more diverse. Though the overall improvement is only 0,7%, of the organisations for which three consecutive measurements took place between 2007-2009, more than half of them have demonstrated an improvement on the six indicators. Asian organisations are more strengthened (average 5% up) whereas Latin America and Africa lag behind. In Africa this can be related to the enormous influx of new members which was almost 25% between 2008 and 2009 alone. A development of which we argued that even stabilisation of participation indicators is already an achievement in itself. The fact that the accountability of farmer leaders in African organisations is increasing, is very good news. The organisations apparently start functioning more as genuine farmers’ organisations where the members actually have a say. These figures are promising, but far from the figures we wanted to be able to show when talking about strengthened organisations. Then again, we cannot be completely conclusive on the outcome of our efforts yet. The last available profiling measurements make use of data on the situation of 2008. Only in the coming year will we have the final data at our disposal on the basis of which can really be determined how worthwhile our efforts to strengthen farmers’ organisations have been. Of course when looking at the bigger picture, the agri-agencies have found in the farmers’ organisations a valuable channel to bring funds to the level where they are most needed. Almost 35% of Farmers Fighting Poverty funds were spent on local level. And with all the successes in individual projects and what that meant for the immense group of 4,5 million farmers, it goes without saying that it has been worthwhile. The sole fact of implementing Farmers Fighting Poverty signifies an income transfer equal to a 7,3% annual income improvement for 156.000 people in the developing world. If the total ODA was spent this way, this situation would apply to 460 million people. In conclusion, we think the farmers’ organisations and the agri-agencies did a good job. In spite of the relatively small budget, we achieved much together. This affirms our conviction that working with farmers’ organisations is key. The vast number of evaluations did deliver points for improvement, but the common trend was positive with recognition for the clear focus, the unique way of farmer-to-farmer development cooperation and the transparent reporting.


In some cases like FERT, Afdi, UPA DI, SCC and Trias this working together means actually being in the field with the farmers’ organisations. In other cases, like that of Agriterra and the associative members of AgriCord, the complete implementation of activities and projects is entrusted to the farmers’ organisations with regular backstopping and technical missions. All agri-agencies together mobilised 2.314 persons in missions and exchanges, almost exactly the planned level. The number of AgriPool experts already forms the largest segment of participants in missions, and we aim to increase this share the coming years by further professionalising this form of advisory services. We know increasingly well what works and what does not. We take our decisions on the basis of facts, and in many cases already know how to re-orient our actions in order to improve performance. But strengthening organisations is a complex task, with many aspects in play. This sometimes makes it difficult for us to determine the exact causes for certain effects. Which is precisely why we want to develop an even more rigorous and evidence-based approach to development cooperation. Already we carefully register and accumulate data on the inputs and results, in a very transparent way. We ally with other players like IFAD, FAO, ILO, universities and development cooperation entities in most of the home countries of agri-agencies to broaden the experience and knowledge. The road ahead will be challenging, but knowing that farmers’ organisations make the difference makes every effort to strengthen them worthwhile.

Rice transport - Madagascar

81

Examples of Project results, Special services reports and Stories

'Excerpts of descriptive Profiling FUCOPRI ............................................................ 7 'Excerpts of descriptive Profiling C-FAP ................................................................ 9 'Excerpts of descriptive Profiling JNC ................................................................. 11 'Excerpts of descriptive Profiling TUSOCO ........................................................... 11 The success of the Farmers’ Market in Juigalpa, Nicaragua ................................... 12 Projet d’Augmentation de Revenue Agricole et Protection de l’Evironment pour led habitants du district de Gicumbi PARAPEGI......................................................... 15 'Excerpts of descriptive Profiling FFF ................................................................. 20 Développement de la filière niébé dans la province du Sanmatenga ....................... 22 Micro-projects contributing to economic empowerment of women and a women leadership training .......................................................................................... 28 Micro finance for rural poor women and micro insurance: upscaling services and enhancing growth in Saving and Credit Cooperatives ........................................... 30 Farmer cooperatives and development of a provincial farmers’ federation ............... 34 EVENTS: Financial management ....................................................................... 36 Sustainable model of safe tea and organic tea ................................................... 39 A testimony from the Democratic Republic of Congo ............................................ 41 Renforcer les capacités, la production et la productivité des cooperatives des agri-éleveurs ........................................................................................................ 47 Augmenter durablement et mieux utiliser la production vivrière des membres de la Maison des Paysans ........................................................................................ 54 'Excerpts of descriptive Profiling FAA-ULE .......................................................... 60 Linking small-scale coffee farmers to better markets ........................................... 67 Plan d'appui au renforcement des capacités des organisations paysannes de la filiere horticole ....................................................................................................... 70

83

Supplements and Annexes

Supplement Agriterra in (2007) - 2010 I The year plan reviewed II Quality and satisfaction surveys Annexes 1 Complete monitoring protocol tables on Farmers Fighting Poverty projects 1B Explanation of tables in monitoring protocol 2 Projects 2B Finding projects on Agro-Info.net 3 Overview of organisations (clients) 4 Composition of AgriCord’s General Assembly, Board of Directors and Project Committee 4B Activities of AgriCord’s General Assembly, Board of Directors and Project Committee 5 Work area managers 6 Budgetary importance and targets per work area 7 List of profiled organisations 7B Explanation of profiling indicators 8 Overview Story harvesting 9 Overview of all evaluations 10 Overview of agri-agencies and associated members of AgriCord 11 Overview of tables and figures

85

Supplement Agriterra in 2010:

I The year plan reviewed

Agriterra’s workplan for 2010 was very succinct. Its core business was greatly reduced by the budget cuts we referred to earlier, and inasmuch as funds were still available for the programme, we report on them in the present Activity Report. Our goals for 2010 were described in the (Dutch-written) Werkplan-2010, approved by DGIS in February of 2010. Precisely because of the funding setbacks, and in the context of a series of online debates among the Agriterra personnel and other stakeholders, we came to see 2010 as a transition year to the period 2011-2014. In order to make that transition successful, Agriterra set 10 priorities for 2010, which were monitored monthly by the management team. The 10 priorities are listed below, including the degree to which they were achieved. Priorities Results Campaign for Farmers Fighting Poverty, and elaboration of the program as either an ongoing program or a multi-donor trust fund, and negotiations with potential funding parties.

Partially achieved. A new programme was formulated with input from all agri-agencies and the Dutch contribution to this programme was submitted to the Dutch government. Likewise, Trias negotiated with DGD on both its regular activities and a special Farmers Fighting Poverty component through AgriCord. Attempts to convince USAID were fruitless. Negotiation with IFAD and EU trough AgriCord continued. A multi-donor trust fund did not materialize.

Information and documentation: improving and enhancing the existing organisational database on www.agro-info.net; elaborating descriptive profilings of selected clients; analysis of the relation between results in strengthening organisations and Agriterra’s input (funding, advice).

Partially achieved. The database was greatly improved and 30 descriptive profilings were produced (see chapter I.2). The analysis of results was not carried out as planned, but some trends are found in the same chapter.

Intensifying courses and advice work for improving financial management of farmers’ organisations; intensifying support for internal organisation (quality processes such as ISO) .

Mainly achieved. The ISO work is not easy to be implemented, but as regards the financial aspect, six successful courses were given together with British specialists of MANGO: in Oxford, in Costa Rica, in Congo, in Niger, in the Philippines and in Tanzania. In Central America, Tanzania, Congo and Niger several organisations that participated in these trainings received tailor-made advisory that should support them in improving their financial health.

Processing financial statements of several clients in order to understand better their funding structure and Financial management

Mainly achieved. The follow-up trajectories of the organisations that participated in the financial management trainings in Central America, Tanzania, Congo and Niger, included a joint analysis of their financial statements. Agriterra personnel received a MANGO training on financial statements, and they put this to use in a new format for the evaluation memos of financial statements.

Improving project proposals, business plans and general organisational plans of clients

Achieved. This has been done mainly through the creation of a fixed format for


Priorities Results project proposals on www.agro-info.net, to be used by the (possible) clients themselves. Also formats (and advice) for business plans have been systematised.

Improving the quality of AgriPool, particularly the match between supply and demand of experts

Partially achieved. New AgriPool advisors were registered in the database. There is still a large number that was never selected to participate in a mission. On the other hand, online evaluations show that many AgriPoolers on mission have done a good job and are eligible for new assignments. Thus, the match supply-demand is improving but not yet perfect.

Promotion of business development with old and new partners, i.e. giving shape to economic initiatives funded by ‘new’ money (loans, investments).

Not achieved. This was postponed to 2011 and made part of the core business of the new team agribusiness.

Elaboration of Agriterra Solutions Partially achieved. One new Solution was announced with a promotional texts (the M&E Solution), so that the official package now consists of nine Solutions. On three of them much refinement was done: participatory generation of policy proposals (a guide will be ready mid-2011), grassroots participation (the toolbox is ready and projects are planned in West Africa, China and perhaps Kenya) and the aforementioned M&E (that is being tested in Niger).

Client analysis, including the determination of who are strategic partners for Agriterra

Achieved. On the basis of the resulting analysis, the client portfolio of Agriterra and of its three new teams (agribusiness, grassroots development, and advocacy and innovation) was determined, including the nomination of clients that will leave said portfolio in the coming years. Farmers’ organisations who are not clients any more but still valuable for our work, will be ‘ partners’.

Discussion on the future of Agriterra. Achieved. An intense and participatory discussion was held using NING software; the Agriterra board was involved as well as an advisory commission instituted by same; and on the basis of the ensuing report32 a reorganisation plan was approved that is being implemented as we speak.

All in all, a satisfactory achievement rate for the specific 2010 objectives. But what about the longer term? How have Agriterra and its surroundings developed in the past decade? In 2000, Agriterra’s managing director formulated a vision for the future, under the title ‘Plan 2010’. This vision depicted an international Agriterra (with a head office to be determined) in which funding and advisory services were to be centralised to a great extent. In the home countries of the member agri-agencies, national Agriterra’s would operate in order to mobilise support among their respective constituencies and raise funds from their governments. Aggregate income for the group would come from three principal sources: large grants (governments, international organisations), profit

32 Focus op ontwikkeling, by Berend Pastoor et al., July, 2010.

87

from three companies to be created (for agro-tourism, advisory services and trade) and contributions from the cooperative sector. This vision did not altogether materialise. AgriCord was created, which was a big step towards more fine-tuning and harmonisation between agri-agencies that until that moment operated quite independently from each other. Integration grew gradually, and took concrete forms in the Farmers Fighting Poverty programme with the joint on-line project management system on www.agro-info.net. But things were not taken to the next level. Agriterra had, and still has, the ambition to integrate the different agri-agencies in one holding. The others are less convinced. Unfortunate and a disappointment that also holds true for the structural cooperation we envisaged between the joint agri-agencies (in the form of AgriCord) and the joint farmers’ organisations in the form of IFAP. It is beyond the scope of this supplement to describe the difficulties in the cooperation with IFAP (see chapter II.3 of the Report for details). Suffice it to say that we have learned from this to be much more critical when engaging in strategic alliances, however promising these might seem to be. The other big disappointment of course was the failure to raise sufficient funds to ensure a steady growth of Farmers Fighting Poverty. This is by no means the fault of ‘our own’ back donor, the Dutch DGIS, who are consistent in their support of our vision, ambitions and activities. However, structural funding by other important private and public sources has not been realised. We won’t repeat here the reasoning that we have put forward many times, but still it has to be said that we keep seeing a big discrepancy between words and actions. Countless documents and reports speak of the importance of representative membership-based organisations in giving shape to rural development; but materialisation in the form of an increase in funding for those organisations is still not reality, and does not look like becoming so in the near future. This modest funding perspective has been one of the catalysts in promoting Agriterra’s self-reflection and internal discussion in 2010. The leading question was: taking into account the end of Farmers Fighting Poverty I, a zero growth in funding and the criticism that we were ‘spreading ourselves too thin’33, what should Agriterra do? Should our approach change? How? The result of this process was our reorganisation. From a functional division (with a team for project funding and one for advisory work, regardless of the thematic focus or region), Agriterra shifted to a thematic division in its work with its client. Three teams have been formed, each with its own name and core business: • Agribusiness • Grass-roots entrepreneurship • Advocacy and innovation As of April 1st, 2011, these teams are at work and giving content to Farmers Fighting Poverty 2011-2014.

33 Mid Term Performance Audit, Farmers Fighting Poverty. Thomas Lewinsky, MDF (Ede, 2010)

89

II Quality and satisfaction surveys

ISO certification Agriterra attaches great importance to transparency and professionalism in its work and the way it is organised. This transparency is also a way to ensure greater client satisfaction (see below) and stakeholder satisfaction in general. Client satisfaction was the starting point for our quality system that we have put in place from 2005 onwards, and that has obtained the ISO 9001:2000 certificate (now: 9001:2008). The certificate was granted (by Lloyd’s Register - LQRA) for a period of three years, which expired in December 2008. We then obtained a new certificate for three years. After the external audit of November, 2009, two so-called ‘minors’ have been noted: • Non-complete closure of external complaints. There are three statuses for

complaints: pending, solved and closed. Too many of them were solved but not closed because no corrective measure was taken and therefore did not have to be evaluated (which is the criterion for closing a complaint).

• The general norms for the main processes in the organisation and the norms used in the year plans of departments and units were not always consistent, nor was inconsistency duly explained and dealt with.

In 2010, Agriterra took corrective measures to address said minors, which were removed by the ISO auditor. The certificate renewal visit is scheduled for October, 2011. Client satisfaction 2007 – 2010 Since 2007, Agriterra has put great effort in increasing client satisfaction. The web-based questionnaire formats were developed gradually to a level that we are now able to register and measure both the satisfaction of farmers’ organisations about the support in their projects, as with the missions they hosted. We started in 2007 with sending out questionnaires to the consultants involved in the missions to our clients. By the end of 2010 it had developed into an online tool which allows Agriterra to measure and monitor the client satisfaction regarding both mission advisory services and project handling services (see table below). The individual and periodical feedback is carefully checked and after identification, possible complaints and calls for improvement are taken up by Agriterra’s quality manager.

Development of client satisfaction surveys

Mission advisory services Projects

2007 Consultants involved in missions -

2008 + Producer organisations, hosting missions

Test phase English version of phase 1 (between application and communication of outcome)

2009 + Segmentation (possibility to analyse according to region, type of expert, mission, etc)

+ Producer organisations, phase 1

2010 + Evaluation of consultants by liaison officer + Producer organisations, phase 2 (execution of project) on limited scale


The response rate is gradually increasing over the years:

With the extension of the scope of research over the years, the representativeness of the figures has increased. Both surveys (projects in their execution phase and when they are concluded, and mission satisfaction) show a rather constant satisfaction indicator that even exceeds the norm set by Agriterra (80% or higher). In addition to that we could observe some trends in both surveys: Trends from the mission process survey As is illustrated by the high satisfaction indicator (>80%), the farmers’ organisations are on average satisfied with the advisory services provided by Agriterra. Remarks such as “we generally consider recommendations to be useful”, “All the recommendations given by the delegates were very relevant to work out the project activity well”, and “The experts gave us a good recommendations concerning the ongoing activities and to formulate business plan for the next year”, underline this. However, there is always room for improvement. In the mission process most comments were made about: • the timely transfer of mission payments • the organisations’ wish for more and longer missions in which there is

room for in-depth training and field visits • the delay in receiving the mission reports Trends from the project process survey Overall the feedback is positive, but organisations can also give recommendations to the project department to improve service delivery. Clients’ critical remarks can be summarized in: • Response time: feedback on project proposal and transfer of funds take too long • Clearness of documents: clients are facing difficulties in understanding and

applying the financial reporting formats and the contract • The lack of empathy/familiarity of project officers with the local situation • Relatively low acquaintance with possibilities and information on Agro-info.net The fragment below illustrates positive feedback from a client satisfaction survey (project 4685 on livelihood improvement of farmers and rural women, carried out by the Confederation of Kisan Organisations (CKO) in Andhra Pradesh, India.

91

Can you briefly indicate in what way this project contributed to the development of your organisation?

Largely Small and marginal farmers were benefited from this project by conducting regular trainings on particular crops, on the latest technologies and also by organizing demonstration plots farmers and holding fields days. Apart from that involving them to participate in all the CKO development activities by farming themselves as village societies. Women Groups were also helped in forming Women Thrift cooperatives to improve their economic standards. By setting of reading libraries women members were empowered. Dairy farmers are being helped by establishing Artificial Insemination (A.I) centres in various locations of our project area and we are trying to involve the State Government to implement I & R System advocated by CRV delta in our project area.

What recommendations do you have for the project department in order to improve its service delivery? (please include any comments you may have on other projects financed by Agriterra)

Project period should be extended so as to cover larger no. of rural farmers and women members

And another one from the Vietnamese National Farmers’ Union, after a project on agro-tourism: Can you briefly indicate in what way this project contributed to the development of your organisation?

This project is really useful for our organization to assist our farmers to take advantages of their local areas to create jobs, generate income, improve knowledge, preserve local cultural characteristics and tradition, awareness on environmental protection, improve living conditions. This project has helped our organization to set up some efficient models for replication.

What recommendations do you have for the project department in order to improve its service delivery? (please include any comments you may have on other projects financed by Agriterra)

I highly appreciate the expertise, kindness and enthusiasm of all Agriterra experts and leaders. I have learned a lot from them. There is only one thing related to Agriterra financial requirements that is very difficult for us to satisfy due to our limited capacity (specifically, Agriterra approve yearly budgets, transfer of a year budget is done in 3 times, the second transfer is done only when the financial and narrative report approved,... It is actually a very good and fair requirement, but our planning and implementing capacity is limited while project activities are inter-related, sometimes it is not easy for us to meet the deadline and ensure the continuation of the activities)

Improvements Improvement measures have already been taken on some critical points. For example: the norm for mission preparation is set at 4 - 6 weeks prior to the mission. This should be sufficient time to make sure that all payments are transferred in time. The contract and financial reporting format have also been reviewed and renewed in order to make them clearer. With the reorganisation of Agriterra becoming effective in April 2011, we expect that other issues can also be improved: • The final approval of mission reports is the prerequisite for the final payment of

mission participants. This approval was given by one person, leading to a concentration of workload that caused a bottle neck for timely payments. This approval will become the responsibility of each individual team manager.

• The clients will deal with one contact person within Agriterra for all project activities, instead of two (liaison and project officer). This should lead to more efficient communication.


• With fewer clients per liaison officer it becomes possible to visit projects once a year. This should lead to more familiarity with the local situation.

In 2011 – 2014 Agriterra’s support and quality department will keep a keen eye on the effects of the measurements taken so far and initiate further improvements. Experts’ satisfaction Just as we ask our direct clients (the farmers’ organisations) about their opinions, we do the same with the experts that we send on missions. No quantitative indicators are available yet to measure their satisfaction with the way Agriterra handles their missions, but a few remarks that occur frequently have to do with: • furnishing clear information by Agriterra on the country to which one is travelling

and on the administrative processing of payments • an incidentally perceived lack of commitment of the host organisation (the farmers’

organisation in the South) to really act upon the recommendations that are (tentatively) made during the closing meetings of a mission. This may also have to with lack of clarity in the Terms of Reference (TOR).

Both points have already led to changes in the mission procedure (1) and efforts to make the TOR more result-oriented (as indeed, the whole of Agriterra has set itself the target of becoming more result-oriented, including the tools we work with). Dealing with complaints In order to enable permanent improvement, the coordinator of the satisfaction surveys passes on all critical remarks to Agriterra’s quality coordinator, who sets in motion (when deemed appropriate) a complaints procedure. In 2010, this led to the registration of 15 external complaints, many of which would otherwise have remained invisible and therefore would not have helped us to improve our work. It is clear that people are less inclined to ‘complain’ pro-actively (i.e. writing a letter or an e-mail). Thanks to the questionnaire there are fewer obstacles to make critical remarks, which we welcome.

Complaints by progress (cumulated)

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Year

Ph

ase

ClosedTreatedIn treatment

In addition to external complaints, there also are internal ‘improvement proposals’ as we prefer to call them. Adding up both external and internal complaints, over the last five years we’ve had a total of 247 (57 of which were external). The above graph shows the cumulative distribution over the three possible statuses of a complaint (in treatment, treated or closed). Thinks are improving but there still are improvement proposals that are (too) long in the ‘in treatment’ stage.

93

Annex 1 Complete monitoring protocol tables on FFP projects

94

Farmers Fighting Poverty - The strength of being organised

96


98


100


102


103

Annex 1B Explanation of tables in Monitoring Protocol

The financial totals in the tables in the protocol tables themselves (Annex 2) need some explanation. The reader will note that the totals in the four columns in that annex are always, regardless of the sub-table in question, the following: Table 19 Total expenditures (planning / realisation)

plan FFP 2007-2010 logframes realisation € 114.750.000 € 150.570.156 € 108.815.434

It is important to explain the nature of these totals, since they make up the context of many analyses in the next chapters. To do so, we partly have to repeat our explanation in the introduction. The first figure under ‘plan FFP 2007-2010’ reflects the programme budget of the agri-agencies as inferred from the original document. The commitments based on the actual requests from farmers’ organisations are registered in the column ‘logframes’. Here all the contributors to the different projects are included, and not just that of the agri-agencies. The ‘realisation’ column follows the same criterion as the logframes column: all actual project expenditures are included, regardless of who the contributors are.

105

Annex 2 Projects 2007 - 2010

project region country title executor agri-agency 3376 Africa West africa Strengthening Networks of Regional MIS and Traders IFDC Agriterra 4047 Africa Kenya Software Development for Cooperatives Agriterra Agriterra 4604 Asia Cambodia CAMFAD Rural Food Security Program CFAP-Cambodia Agriterra 4606 Europe Moldova Strategic plan NFFM for the period 2007 NFFM Agriterra 4685 Asia India Livelihood improvement of farmers and rural Women CKO Agriterra 4686 Asia India Co-operative dairy processing by women small holder producers IIMF Agriterra 4701 Africa Niger Appui au renforcement des capacités d’intervention et à la mise en place d’un système

de commercialisation du bétail et d’approvisionnement en intrants. Apel ZP UPA DI 4781 Latin america Bolivia Formación de líderes para mejorar la economía de COMUVA con visión empresarial CoMuVA Agriterra 4796 Africa Mali Appui au processus de Loi d´orientation agricole CNOP-Mali UPA DI 4800 Africa Madagascar Accompagnement de FIFATA et de ses 5 Fédérations régionales d'organisations paysannes

membres à Madagascar FIFATA FERT 4801 Africa Tanzania Improvement of Distribution System for Dairy Products TDCU Agriterra 4802 Africa West africa Échanges d´expériences Sud-Sud entre OPA nationales sur les lois d'orientation agricole AFDI AFDI 4831 Latin america Mexico Fortaleciendo el liderazgo para un empoderamiento con equidad e igualdad de género AMMOR Agriterra 4832 Africa Niger Appui à la mise en place d'un projet pilote de mise en marché collective FCMN-NIYA UPA DI 4833 World World WA 19 Building Agriterra's M&E system Agriterra Agriterra 4834 Asia Indonesia Horticultural Partnership Support Programme (HPSP) - 2nd phase INA Agriterra 4835 Africa Benin Atelier d'échanges d'expériences sur les stratégies d'autofinancement des OP, notamment

par la mise en place de services AFDI AgriCord 4836 Africa Mali Projet de mise en place d'une plate-forme nationale de producteurs de riz au Mali AOPP AgriCord 4837 World World International farmer dialogue for policy-making and advocacy IFAP Agriterra 4839 Asia South east Asia The Project on Credit Union Development in Asia Phase 3 ACCU Agriterra 4842 Africa Madagascar Formulation du projet professionnel et du projet économique de la Maison des Paysans MdP AFDI 4843 Latin america Peru Incidencia para el fortalecimiento de la Agricultura Sostenible y la Seguridad Alimentaría

desde las mujeres y jóvenes rurales de la CNA CNA Agriterra 4844 Africa Guinea Appui au service de conseil en gestion de la FPFD Guinée FPFD AFDI 4845 Africa Guinea Mise en place de systèmes d'information sur les marchés (SIM) CNOP UPA DI 4846 Latin america Uruguay Transformación y Crecimiento del Sistema Cooperativo Agropecuario CAF Agriterra 4847 Africa Benin Renforcement des capacités de l'Association nationale des éleveurs de ruminants du

Bénin et accompagnement de ses initiatives de développement UDOPER/anoper AFDI 4850 Asia Cambodia Reinforcement of institutional development and the expansion of FNN FNN Agriterra 4851 Asia Cambodia Sustainable Branch Development Project 2007 CCSF Agriterra 4852 Latin america Colombia Fortalecimiento institucional de la confederación empresarial del campo CONFECAMPO Agriterra 4853 Asia Nepal Participation of women in credit unions and mutual aid program NEFSCUN Agriterra 4855 Africa Cameroon Appui institutionnel de la CONAPROCAM pour un développement de services relatifs à la filière cacao Conaprocam AFDI 4856 Africa Chad Appui institutionnel à l’Atader pour un développement durable dans le Logone oriental ATADER AFDI 4857 Asia Philippines Consolidation And Expansion through Capability Building Activities and Livelihood Projects WOPD Agriterra 4858 Africa Ivory Coast Renforcement de l’ANOPACI pour un Développement Durable en Milieu Rural ANOPACI AFDI 4859 Africa Mali Renforcer et dynamiser l'AOPP pour mieux servir ses membres et défendre les paysans. AOPP AFDI 4860 Latin america Peru Capacidad de gestión de pequeños productores de café JNC Agriterra

106


project region country title executor agri-agency 4861 Africa Congo, D.R. Renforcement des federations agricoles au Nord-Kivu SYDIP Agriterra 4862 Africa Congo, D.R. Professionnalisation des agriculteurs de la Cooperative Centrale du Nord-Kivu Coocenki Agriterra 4864 Asia South east Asia Strengthening advocacy and enhancement of membership development AFA Agriterra 4865 Asia Philippines Organic rice production FFF Agriterra 4866 Latin america Peru Afianzamiento de las propuestas politicas III 2007 Conveagro Agriterra 4867 Africa Congo, D.R. Femme paysanne, debout pour l'auto promotion LOFEPACO Agriterra 4868 Africa Madagascar La professionnalisation des agriculteurs à Madagascar FEKRITAMA Agriterra 4869 Africa Congo, D.R. Commercialisation des produits apicoles ASALI Agriterra 4872 Africa Congo, D.R. Renforcement économique des pisciculteurs UCOPIS Agriterra 4873 Asia Thailand Bio-energy and Cooperatives CLT Agriterra 4874 Africa Congo, D.R. La Potentialisation de la FOPAC Sud-Kivu FOPAC-SK Agriterra 4875 Africa Kenya Transition plan, linking "Sowing the seeds of Renewal" with the Strategic plan KENFAP Agriterra 4878 Asia Thailand Enhance service delivery towards members SorKorPor Agriterra 4879 Africa Uganda Ensuring coffee quality and increased price share at farmers level NUCAFE Trias 4880 Latin america Brazil Strengthening the cooperative branches in Parana region UNICAFES-PR Trias 4881 Africa Uganda Operationalisation of the National Association for Sugarcane Farmers in Uganda UNASGO Trias 4882 Africa Tanzania Streamlining of service delivery to the Sugarcane Growers' Associations in Tanzania TASGA Trias 4883 Latin america Bolivia Fortalecimiento institutional de Tusoco TUSOCO Agriterra 4885 Latin america Brazil Apoio institucional e organização de base da fetraf para a consolidação da agricultura familiar na Bahia FETRAF-Bahia Agriterra 4887 Africa Tanzania Business Plan for community based rural tourism development in Kwalei and Kwekanga Mviwata Agriterra 4888 Europe Netherlands Grensverleggende samenwerking 2 (pushing back frontiers in Cooperation 2) NAJK Agriterra 4890 Africa Benin L'implication des femmes de Tikonna est effective Tikonna Agriterra 4891 Latin america Argentina Fortalecimiento de la juventud: Programma "Carlitos" FAA Agriterra 4892 Latin america Nicaragua fortalecimiento el desarrollo organizativo e empresarial de l@s afiliad@s de UNAG Chontales UNAG Chontales Agriterra 4893 Africa Senegal Oser et Croire 2007/2008 UPP-UF Agriterra 4894 Africa Madagascar Renforcement Institutionnel des OP Faîtières et Plate-formes Paysannes Malgaches Tranoben’ny Tantsaha Agriterra 4897 Asia Philippines Improving livelihood of coconut growers in Mindanao - Phase II PASAKA Agriterra 4898 Latin america Uruguay AMRU: Por un desarrollo integral sustentable AMRU Agriterra 4899 Europe Netherlands Publicity, publications and media in The Netherlands Agriterra Agriterra 4901 Europe Netherlands Raising funds for rural development Agriterra Agriterra 4902 Europe Netherlands Events to raise awareness Agriterra Agriterra 4903 Africa Madagascar Action paysanne envers la politique agricole Malgache et la structuration des filières SOA AFDI 4904 Asia Philippines Building Strategic and Operational Partnerships for Sustained Growth PMBA Agriterra 4905 World World Work area 5: Grassroots Participation Agriterra Agriterra 4906 Africa Benin Améliorer la situation socio-économique et culturelle des membres Mialebouni Mialebouni Agriterra 4907 World World Work Area 2. Financial management Agriterra Agriterra 4908 Latin america Mexico La construcción de capacidades de la Coordinadora Mexicana de pequeños productores

de comercio justo CM Agriterra 4910 Asia Philippines Micro-Enterprise Development for Rural Women - year 2 LAKAMBINI Agriterra 4911 Africa Congo, D.R. Renforcement économique et securisation foncieres des collectifs UPDI Agriterra 4912 Africa Niger Renforcement des capacités organisationnelles et techniques de la FUCOPRI et de ses membres FUCOPRI Agriterra 4913 Africa Niger PFPN: Appui stratégique à la Plateforme Paysanne du Niger PFPN Agriterra 4914 Africa Congo, D.R. Augmenter les revenues des producteurs agricoles membres de la FOPAC-NK FOPAC-NK Agriterra

107

project region country title executor agri-agency 4915 Africa Rwanda ROPARWA: Collaboration lors de la phase de transition ROPARWA Agriterra 4916 Africa Niger AREN: Appui au développement des capactités des groupements de base et de développement

des filières animales AREN Agriterra 4917 Africa Niger FCMN-Niya: Projet de renforcement des capacités des producteurs de filières agricoles FCMN-NIYA Agriterra 4918 Africa Mali Projet d’appui à la filière blé et à l’Union des coopératives Baabahuu Jici (PAFB/BJ) BJ UPA DI 4919 Africa Mali Amélioration de la production et de la mise en marché des produits agricoles dans le cercle de

Kéniéba, région de Kayes BJ UPA DI 4921 Latin america Uruguay Hacia la consolidación de la Cooperativa Delicias Criollas CDC Agriterra 4923 Africa East-Africa Organisational assessment and preparation of strategic plan EAFF Agriterra 4924 Africa Rwanda IMBARAGA: accompagnement des processus de transformation organisationnelle IMBARAGA Agriterra 4925 Africa Rwanda INGABO: Appui à la mise en oeuvre du plan stratégique Ingabo Agriterra 4926 World World Breakthrough of AgriCord AgriCord Agriterra 4927 Africa Rwanda UCORIRWA: vers une fédération solide de coopératives rizicoles UCORIRWA Agriterra 4930 Asia Philippines Enhancing the Marketing Capacity of Corn and Sugar Farmers in the Philippines NATCCO Agriterra 4931 Latin america El Salvador Projet d'appui à la mise en marché du lait à la CCA - El Salvador CCA UPA DI 4932 Asia Vietnam Technical and business training program in Vietnam QTCA Agriterra 4933 Asia India Promotion of sustainable model of agricultural coops in Cambodia, Laos PDR and Afghanistan ICA Agriterra 4934 Latin america Uruguay Encuentro nacional de dirigentes y referentes de comisión nacional de fomento rural CNFR Agriterra 4935 Africa Benin Renforcement du conseil régional des riziculteurs et amélioration de la commercialisations

collective du riz dans les départements du Mono et du Couffo CRR-MC AFDI 4936 Africa Benin Consolider le service export ananas de l'UPS et développer l'appui au développement de l

a filière ananas Bénin URPAL (jadis UPS) AFDI 4937 World World Work Area 14 Gender and Women in Development Agriterra Agriterra 4941 World World Work Area 11- Market and Chain Development Trias Trias 4942 Latin america Peru Fortalecimiento Organizacional y Empresarial de la SPAR SPAR Agriterra 4943 World World Work Area 8: Management Banking, Credit, including Insurance Agriterra Agriterra 4947 Latin america Bolivia Campesino a Campesino en AOPEB, para una producción ecológica AOPEB Agriterra 4949 Africa Benin Programme de développement de l'agriculture par un renforcement du milieu paysan au Bénin FUPRO UPA DI 4950 World World Work Area 16 Enhancing rural tourism development by producers organisations Agriterra Agriterra 4951 Africa Morocco Coopératives et valorisation des blés de qualité au Maroc Coop KhemCha FERT 4952 Africa Madagascar Formation des jeunes au sein de collèges agricoles. Conception et réalisation de formations

aux métiers de formateurs et conseillers agricoles. FIFATA FERT 4953 Latin america Costa Rica Fortalecimiento organizativo e institucional CMC CMC Agriterra 4954 Asia Palestina PFU Member Association Strengthening and Empowering PFU Agriterra 4955 Latin america Ecuador Mejoramiento de la Competitividad del sector Apícola UNORCAC Agriterra 4958 Africa Congo, D.R. Programme Marais au Bushi CIMBUSHI Agriterra 4959 Africa Benin Renforcement des capacités de la FUPRO, UPS, URP-Ouémé et URP-Mono/Couffo FUPRO Agriterra 4960 Asia India Matching farmers and Agri Business in Andhra Pradesh FFAAP Agriterra 4961 Asia India Establishing Women's Learning centres in Andhra Pradesh FFAAP Agriterra 4963 Africa Uganda Programme Weaving the oilseed web UOSPA Agriterra 4964 World World Work area 12: management Agricultural Research & Development Agriterra Agriterra 4966 Asia Vietnam Improve farmers capacity to produce safety and organic tea TNFU Agriterra 4967 Africa Tanzania Strengthening and development of USAWA in Kilimanjaro Region USAWA FERT 4969 Europe Armenia Organizational Strengthening of FAA-ULE Member Farmer's Organizations FAA-ULE Agriterra

108


project region country title executor agri-agency 4972 World World Work area 4: management institutional development Agriterra Agriterra 4973 World World ESFIM: Empowering Smallholder Farmers in Markets IFAP Agriterra 4975 Latin america Ecuador Estudio y elaboración del proyecto para incremento de 2000 ha de producción y comercialización

de banano orgánico de pequeños productores UROCAL Agriterra 4976 Africa Kenya Improved banana production for increased household income KENFAP Agriterra 4977 Africa Kenya Integrated dairy goat management for improved household income KENFAP Agriterra 4979 Africa Kenya Enhancing distribution and value addition of milk in three area branches KENFAP Agriterra 4980 Africa Kenya Cotton growing and ginning KENFAP Agriterra 4981 Africa Kenya Farmers communication center KENFAP Agriterra 4982 Africa Kenya Multipurpose fruit juice processing in three area branches KENFAP Agriterra 4983 Africa Kenya Indigenous poultry rearing KENFAP Agriterra 4984 Africa Kenya Modernisation and commercialisation of honey production in six Area Branches KENFAP Agriterra 4986 Africa Kenya Enhancing quality and timely farm input supplies in five area branches KENFAP Agriterra 4988 Africa Uganda Training in HIV/AIDS approach UOSPA Agriterra 4998 Africa Tanzania Strengthening of commercial capacities of agricultural producers in Tanzania Mviwata FERT 5000 Africa West africa From thousands to millions : 'Fonds d'Appui à la promotion des poles d'entreprises agricoles

(FAPEA) IFDC Agriterra 5002 Asia Vietnam Building the capacity of VNFU for the development of Agro-tourism VNFU Agriterra 5004 Africa Kenya Member’s consultation process to strengthen the CGA KCGA Agriterra 5005 Asia Philippines Strengthening capacity to speed up socio- economic reforms and generate local resources PAKISAMA Agriterra 5007 Africa Algeria Animation du Réseau Méditerranéen RCM et renforcement des capacités des Groupes de base

pour la promotion de l’Agriculture de Conservation FERT FERT 5008 Africa Togo Amélioration de la structuration, renforcement du positionnement institutionnel du RENOP TOGO,

et développement des services à ses OP membres. RENOP AFDI 5009 Africa Madagascar Appui à trois OP régionales membres du réseau SOA pour la réalisation de leur projet professionnel SOA AFDI 5010 Africa Senegal Programme d’appui au renforcement des compétences techniques, politiques et économiques

des leaders et de ses membres CNCR AFDI 5012 Europe Netherlands Agriterra 10 jaar Agriterra Agriterra 5013 Africa Burkina Faso Plan opérationnel des 4 axes stratégiques FEPA/B Agriterra 5016 Africa Tanzania Institutional support to Monduli district branch of Mviwata, Mviwamo MVIWAMO Trias 5017 Africa Uganda Towards increased rural income and nutritional habits in Mbarara district, Uganda UNFFE-Mbarara District Trias 5018 Africa Tanzania Increased rural income and diversification of agricultural production, Bukoba district, Tanzania Mayawa Trias 5019 Africa Tanzania Increased rural income and nutritional health in Muleba district, Tanzania Mali Trias 5020 Africa Tanzania Strengthening Mviwata at national and middle level networks for service delivery Mviwata Agriterra 5021 Africa Benin Tourisme rural communautaire au Bénin UCP Grand-Popo Agriterra 5022 Europe France Des paysans sans frontières en campagne pour un développement durable AFDI Agriterra 5024 Africa Mali Appui institutionnel à l'Assemblée permanente des chambres d'agriculture du Mali (APCAM BJ UPA DI 5028 Africa Tanzania Training staff of Tanzanian co-operatives in complying with international financial reporting standards TFC Agriterra 5030 Africa Burkina Faso Consolider la Fédération des Professionnels Agricoles du Burkina Faso en optimisant les acquis de

ses programmes de développement FEPA/B AFDI 5031 Africa Zambia SMS Market Information System for South and East Africa ZNFU Agriterra 5032 Africa West africa Appui aux activités de formation et de plaidoieries menées par les OPA en lien avec la souveraineté

alimentaire ROPPA UPA DI 5033 World World Agro-info as information platform for producer organisations Agriterra Agriterra

109

project region country title executor agri-agency 5034 Africa Mali Renforcement institutionnel et organisationnel du syndicat des exploitants agricoles de l'Office du Niger

(SEXAGON)- MALI Sexagon AFDI 5036 Latin america Brazil Plan de Acao-2007 Fetraf Sul FETRAF-SUL Agriterra 5037 World World Rural youth remain! Conference Mijarc 2008 MIJARC Trias 5042 Africa Ethiopia Learning alliance Ethiopia: Chain empowerment of farmer organisations Ethiopia Learning Alliance Agriterra 5043 Africa Niger Appui au développement d'un plaidoyer au sein de l'OP Moribeen FUGPN - Mooriben UPA DI 5045 Latin america Brazil Consolidation d’UNILEITE pour une professionnalisation des exploitations familiales d’élevage laitier du

Sud-Ouest du Parana UNILEITE FERT 5046 World World Work Area 3 - Internal organizational strengthening AFDI AFDI 5047 World World Work Area 7 - Agricultural development (crops) AFDI AFDI 5048 World World Work Area 10 - Agricultural extension AFDI AFDI 5049 Latin america Peru HUADQUIÑA: La hacienda cooperativa las fincas de café y su gran diversidad en camino al Machupicchu COCLA Agriterra 5050 Africa Madagascar Renforcement des capacités des éleveurs laitiers du Vakinankaratra (Union ROVA) FERT FERT 5051 Africa Southern Africa “Fair deal” in cotton contract farming SACAU SCC 5052 Asia Lao PDR Strengthening the Credit Union movement in Lao PDR ACCU Agriterra 5053 Asia Thailand Credit Union Development in Asia 2008-2009 ACCU Agriterra 5054 Latin america Central america Renforcement et réseautage des organisations agricoles d'Amérique Centrale face à la commercialisation

des produits agricoles CCA AgriCord 5055 Latin america Nicaragua Proceso de análisis participativo de las ventajas competitivas para el desarrollo económico de pequeños y

medianos productores UNAG Chinandega Agriterra 5056 World World Work Area 01 Participatory Generation of Policies and Proposals Agriterra Agriterra 5057 World World Work area 6 "Development ofTraining Modules and Facilities" UPA DI UPA DI 5058 Africa West africa 1000+: Programmes de formation pour la professionnalisation de l'appui accompagnement selon

l'approche CASE IFDC Agriterra 5061 World World Work area 9 "Inputs for agriculture" Agriterra Agriterra 5063 World World Work Area 17 Promote and set up farmers’ business initiatives Agriterra Agriterra 5064 Africa Rwanda Projet d’Augmentation de Revenue Agricole et Protection de l’Evironment pour led habitants du district de

Gicumbi PARAPEGI. Impuyaki Cooperative SCC 5065 Asia Nepal Up scaling of financial services to protect the poor NEFSCUN Agriterra 5067 Latin america Argentina Nuevos miembros, mejores servicios, mayor producción de lana FECORSUR Agriterra 5068 Asia India Empowering farmers for effective participation in decision making (Bridging period proposal for 2008) FFAAP Agriterra 5069 Latin america El Salvador Projet d'appui à la mise en marché du lait à la CCA (phase 2) CCA UPA DI 5070 Africa Benin Le développement de services de qualité par le CRR pour une meilleure valorisation du riz local pour les

producteurs du Mono Couffo - Bénin. CRR-MC AFDI 5071 World World Work Area 18 : Strengthening of support AFDI AFDI 5072 Africa Burkina Faso Développement de la filière niébé dans la province du Sanmatenga au Burkina Faso UDPNP FERT 5073 Latin america Peru Programa de fortalecimiento organizacional de los productores de maíz y sorgo ANPMYS Agriterra 5075 Africa Togo Appui à la structuration de l'UAR et au renforcement des services aux membres UAR Plateaux AFDI 5077 Asia Philippines Continuity on Consolidation and Expansion through Capability Building Activities and Livelihood Projects WOPD Agriterra 5078 Africa Sierra Leone Advocacy seminars in Makeni and Kenema NAFSL Agriterra 5087 Latin america Mexico Plan de acción 2008: La construcción de capacidades de la Coordinadora Mexicana CM Agriterra 5088 Africa Uganda Raising the Food- and Income Security of Poor Farm Households in Masindi District Madfa Trias 5091 Latin america El Salvador Building organisational, productive and lobbying capacities in the Eastern Agricultural Cooperatives CONFRAS Agriterra 5092 Latin america Central america Business and organisational support to consolidate trading relations between Latin-American and CSF Agriterra

110


project region country title executor agri-agency European cooperatives

5093 Latin america Paraguay Comprehensive Campesino Settlement Model ONAC Agriterra 5096 World World Work Area 15 Management Information & Communication Technology Agriterra Agriterra 5097 Asia Indonesia Economic development through market improvement of peppers and organic vegetables SPPQT Agriterra 5098 Africa Togo Projet d'appui à la structuration du réseau national RENOP et à la défense des intérêts des agriculteurs

togolais. RENOP AFDI 5099 Africa Senegal Synergie des multiples initiatives économiques agricoles FONGS Agriterra 5100 Latin america Nicaragua Fortaleciendo los afiliados de UNAG Chontales - Fase II UNAG Chontales Agriterra 5101 Latin america Bolivia Fortalecimiento institucional y comercial de TUSOCO TUSOCO Agriterra 5103 Latin america South America Collaboration agreement between Agriterra and SCC SCC Agriterra 5104 Asia Thailand Improvement of Services to Farmers in Thailand SorKorPor Agriterra 5105 Africa Madagascar Micro projets FEKRITAMA – Madagascar FEKRITAMA Agriterra 5106 Africa Burkina Faso Mise en oeuvre du plan stratégique de l'UGCPA/BM UGCPA/BM UPA DI 5107 Africa Niger Plan d'appui au renforcement des capacités des organisations paysannes de la filiere horticole FCMN-NIYA Agriterra 5108 Asia Cambodia CAMFAD rural poverty reduction and market access (CROP-MA) 2008 CFAP-Cambodia Agriterra 5109 World World Work Area 19 - Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation AgriCord AgriCord 5112 World World Agricultural value chain development in fragile states Agriterra Agriterra 5113 Africa East-Africa Strategic Plan of the Eastern Africa Farmers Federation EAFF Agriterra 5114 Asia Cambodia Farmer organizations networks working for sustainable development of family agriculture FNN Agriterra 5115 Latin america South America Linking small-scale coffee farmers to better markets Pachamama Coffee Co-op Agriterra 5117 Africa Togo Appui au renforcement des services aux membres de l’UGKo UGKo AFDI 5118 Africa Burkina Faso Introduction/application SAGE 100 ( comptabilité de la FEPA-B) FEPA/B Agriterra 5119 Asia Philippines Attaining self-sustaining status and sustained growth PMBA Agriterra 5120 Europe Moldova Strategic Plan NFFM 2008-2010: organisational consolidation and intensification of service delivery NFFM Agriterra 5121 Africa Burkina Faso Soutien au réseau gestion pour développer le conseil à l'exploitation familiale au Burkina Faso FEPA/B AFDI 5122 Africa Kenya The Kenya Coffee Cooperatives ICT Management Program KCPA Agriterra 5123 Latin america Uruguay un plan estratégico en ejecución para contribuir a la sostenibilidad AMRU Agriterra 5124 Africa Ivory Coast Renforcement de l’ANOPACI pour un Développement Durable en Milieu Rural- phase 2 ANOPACI AFDI 5125 Latin america Uruguay Mejora de la competitividad y el impacto social de las cooperativas agropecuarias CAF Agriterra 5126 Africa Togo Appui à la commercialisation du café et du cacao biologiques au Togo ATPB AFDI 5127 Latin america Uruguay Contribuyendo a la implementación del plan de negocios CDC Agriterra 5129 Asia Philippines Enriching farmers competency towards productivity enhancement and enterprise development PASAKA Agriterra 5130 Africa Uganda Weaving the oil seed web: Commercialising oilseed production by small holder farmers in North

East Uganda UOSPA Agriterra 5131 Africa Rwanda PLAN 2008 "Rendre des membres d'etre entrepreneurs performants" IMBARAGA Agriterra 5132 Africa Rwanda PLAN D’ACTIONS 2008-2010: Organiser les producteurs autour de filières porteuses Ingabo Agriterra 5135 Africa Niger Renforcement des unions membres de la FUCOPRI (2008-2009) FUCOPRI Agriterra 5137 Africa Niger PLAN OPERATIONEL DE LA PFPN 2008 – 2010 PFPN Agriterra 5138 Africa Uganda Raising the food and income security of poor farm households in Mbarara District UNFFE-Mbarara District Trias 5139 Africa Uganda Raising the Food and Income Security of Poor Farm Households in Hoima District HODFA Trias 5140 Latin america Peru Fortaleciendo las capacidades de gestión organizativa – empresarial de los productores de café y cacao CEPICAFE Agriterra 5141 World World Monitoring and evaluation in 2008 Agriterra Agriterra 5142 Asia Nepal Capacity development of TEASEC and its farmers partner organisations TEASEC Agriterra

111

project region country title executor agri-agency 5143 Africa West africa From Thousands to Millions: Pilotage du projet 1000s+ par OP et facilitation de l'émergence des

dynamiques économiques locales ROPPA Agriterra 5144 Africa Congo, D.R. Renforcement des organisations paysannes au Sud-Kivu FOPAC-SK Agriterra 5145 Africa Madagascar Des paysans s'organisent pour être acteurs de leur développement SOA AFDI 5146 Africa Madagascar Amplifier les initiatives et renforcer les capacités sur 2 zones pilotes de la Maison des Paysans à

Tuléar, Madagascar MdP AFDI 5147 Latin america Chili Mejorando la gestión administrativa financiera y contable Voz del Campo Agriterra 5148 Latin america South America Fortalecimiento institucional de la CLAC y desarrollo de mercados y capacidades de los miembros CLAC Agriterra 5149 Africa Benin Démultiplication des services et autonomisation de l’Anoper (2008-2010) ANOPER AFDI 5150 Africa Mali Plaidoyer pour une stabilisation du marché du riz au Mali AOPP AFDI 5151 Africa Benin Attention aux inégalités sociales à travers la participation des femmes Tikonna Agriterra 5157 Africa Uganda Developing a micro insurance product in two Saving and Credit Co-operative Societies UCA Agriterra 5159 Africa Uganda PROVIDING INFORMATION SERVICES TO FARMERS EMERGING OUT OF CONFLICT KIDFA Agriterra 5160 Asia India Agricultural policy advocacy and lobbying of farmers interests at national level by CIFA CIFA Agriterra 5161 Africa Mali Renforcer et dynamiser l’AOPP pour mieux servir ses membres et défendre les paysans AOPP AFDI 5163 Africa Benin Vente groupée d’anacarde dans l’Atacora et la Donga URPA / AD AFDI 5164 Latin america Argentina SEGUNDA ETAPA PROGRAMA CARLITOS: FORTALECIMIENTO DE LA JUVENTUD (institutional

strengthening rural youth organisation) FAA Agriterra

5165 Africa Mali Appui aux OP Faso Jigi et Babahhu Jici dans le cadre de la commercialisation des céréales au Mali (projet PACCEM) Faso Jigi UPA DI

5166 Africa Benin Renforcer la détermination et l'engagement des membres (vers une association plus performante) Mialebouni Agriterra 5167 Africa Ghana Increase capacity for internal and external linkages FONG Trias 5168 Asia Philippines Congress for the Consolidation of the Peasant Women Federation LAKAMBINI Agriterra 5169 Asia Jordan Identification of priorities for the General Commission of JFU JFU Agriterra 5170 Latin america Bolivia Encarando el desarrollo lechero CONAPLE Agriterra 5171 Latin america Peru Fortalecimiento de la Coordinadora Nacional de Mujeres Cafetaleras JNC Agriterra 5172 Latin america Peru Desarrollo de capacidades institucionales de la JNC JNC Agriterra 5173 Africa Senegal Valorisation du métier des femmes éleveurs pour lutter contre l'exode rural dans la région

de Kaolack, Sénégal DIRFEL AFDI 5176 Latin america Bolivia Mejorando el sistema de Planificación, Monitoreo y Evaluación CIOEC-B Agriterra 5177 Latin america Brazil Fortaleciendo la gestión interna de la organización FETRAF-SUL Agriterra 5179 World World Farmers' Organisations Inventory Mapping in Tanzania and Madagascar FERT FERT 5180 Asia India Building entrepreneurial skills in a fledging rural institution: training for improved management

and marketing of vegetable and fruit co-operative Green Foundation/NISARGA Agriterra 5181 Asia Vietnam Improving farmer's capacity of producing safe and organic tea in communes of Thai Nguyen province. TNFU Agriterra 5184 Africa Cameroon Appui aux exploitations familiales à dominante cacaoyères via le renforcement de la Conaprocam

et de ses fédérations. Conaprocam AFDI 5185 Europe Belgium Agricultural journalism and PO's IFAJ Trias 5187 Africa Tanzania Business Plan 'Dairy Processing Plant Vwawa' Mviwambo Agriterra 5188 Africa Tanzania Strengthening of the middle level of MVIWATA Mviwata Agriterra 5189 Latin america Peru Curso internacional de lecheria AGALEP Agriterra 5190 Latin america Peru Productores de papa por competitividad contra la pobreza (etapa 1) CORPAPA Agriterra 5192 Africa Cameroon Mapping des organisations paysannes au Cameroun AFDI AFDI

112


project region country title executor agri-agency 5193 Africa Mali Mapping des OP au Mali UPA DI UPA DI 5195 Africa Kenya Micro projects KENFAP 2009 KENFAP Agriterra 5197 Africa Guinea Renforcement des capacités de négociation et de défense des intérêts de la fédération et ses membres FOP-BG Trias 5198 Africa Tanzania Starting up and strenghtening of the middle level Mviwata Manyara Mvimanya Trias 5199 Africa Tanzania Improved agricultural production and access to markets and enhanced active participation of small

scale farmers in local economic development processes MVIWAMO Trias 5200 Africa Niger Amélioration des conditions de vie des pasteurs et agro-pasteurs AREN Agriterra 5202 Europe Netherlands Symposium 20 jaar ontwikkelingssamenwerking LLTB LLTB Agriterra 5204 Europe Belgium Strengthening solidarity and mutual respect between farmers' organisations in North and South Trias Trias 5205 Latin america Guatemala Improved market conditions, quality labeling, cooperative management for 1300 small organic

coffeeproducers APODIP Trias 5206 Latin america Ecuador Strengthening of the provincial union of potato producers in commercialisation and marketing

strategies of the potato sector in Ecuador CONPAPA Trias 5207 Africa Kenya KENFAP in HIV/AIDS mitigation among the farming community KENFAP Agriterra 5209 Latin america El Salvador CCA as active role player in the local economic development of Nonualcos CCA Trias 5210 Africa Burkina Faso L'organisation de professionnels agricoles forte, visible et crédible FEPA/B Agriterra 5211 Latin america Honduras Towards a strong rural movement, AMPRO AMPRO Trias 5212 Latin america Brazil Consolidação e inserção das bases FETRAF-Bahia Agriterra 5213 Africa Uganda A Farmer-driven approach for improved coffee quality and increased value share NUCAFE Trias 5215 Latin america Brazil Cooperative branches, chain development & lobby capacity UNICAFES-PR Trias 5217 Africa Mozambique Strengthening of União Nacional de Camponeses (UNAC) in Mosambique UNAC Agriterra 5219 Latin america Peru Incidencia política y Comité de Gremios Agrarios en Peru Conveagro Agriterra 5221 Africa Uganda Effectively respond to the impact and consequences of HIV/AIDS UNFFE Agriterra 5222 Africa Uganda Internal mainstreaming HIV and AIDS in UOSPA : focus on staff UOSPA Agriterra 5224 Africa Mali Renforcement du dispositif et des services ICT du CRCR et de ses membres CRCR Agriterra 5225 Africa Burundi Professionnalisation de l`agriculture et de l`élevage en Burundi et contribuer à la consolidation de la paix CAPAD Agriterra 5226 Africa West africa Programme Pastoral Regional phase II pour le Sahel d'Afrique de L'Ouest Réseau Billital Maroobé Agriterra 5227 Africa Benin Accompagnement de l'ARPA dans son développement et dans la maîtrise de la filière ananas ARPA AFDI 5229 Africa Mali Développement d'un plan d'affaires pour la mise en place d’une Centrale de Services pour des OP au Mali Faso Jigi UPA DI 5230 Africa East-Africa Trajectory: towards better HIV/AIDS competent producer organisations Agri-ProFocus Agriterra 5231 Asia India Matching farmers and agribusiness FFAAP Agriterra 5232 Africa Burkina Faso Renforcer la FEPAB afin d’œuvrer à l'accroissement des capacités organisationnelles, techniques et

économiques de ses membres. FEPA/B AFDI 5233 Latin america Brazil Political & operational strengthening of Unicafes Nacional UNICAFES NACIONAL Trias 5234 Asia India Establishment of a womens wing and support to women learning centres in Andhra Pradesh FFAAP Agriterra 5235 Africa Ivory Coast Mise en place d'une plate-forme de concertation des producteurs de cacao en Côte d'Ivoire ANOPACI AFDI 5238 Latin america Bolivia Fortaleciendo las capacidades y sostenibilidad de las OECAs (2009-2011) CIOEC-B Agriterra 5239 Asia Philippines Improving Peasants' Socio-Economic-Political Conditions in the Philippines PAKISAMA Agriterra 5240 Africa Niger Appui à l’amélioration de la sécurité alimentaire dans la région de Zinder au Niger CSAOCP Agriterra 5242 Africa Guinea Projet d'appui aux populations de Moyenne-Guinée FPFD UPA DI 5243 Asia Philippines Techno-demo farms and biofarming network FFF Agriterra 5244 Asia Cambodia Strengthening of small farmer groups and improving their market access CFAP-Cambodia Agriterra 5246 Africa Congo, D.R. Développement de la Filière lait dans la Province du Sud- Kivu en RD CONGO APDIK Agriterra 5248 Europe Netherlands Permanent positioning of Monitoring and Evaluation Agriterra Agriterra

113

project region country title executor agri-agency 5250 Europe Netherlands Events in 2009 and 2010 in The Netherlands Agriterra Agriterra 5251 Europe Netherlands Publicity, publications and media in The Netherlands Agriterra Agriterra 5252 Europe Netherlands Fundraising in The Netherlands Agriterra Agriterra 5253 World World Communication with clients of Agriterra and agri-agencies Agriterra Agriterra 5254 Africa Guinea Une unité de transformation pour les unions de la Haute Guinée Ouest URCO Trias 5255 Africa Senegal Programme de développement de l'agriculture par un renforcement du milieu paysan au Sénégal UGPM UPA DI 5257 Africa Ivory Coast Développer la production des membres de l'union de coopératives Unickor UNICKOR AFDI 5258 Africa Uganda Demonstration plantation of pineapple and organizing marketing of pineapple LUDFA Agriterra 5259 Africa West africa Création de la plateforme panafricaine des organisations paysannes et de producteurs de l'Afrique ROPPA Agriterra 5260 World World Three micro projects contributing to economic empowerment of women and a women leadership training ACWW Agriterra 5261 World World Programme de renforcement des capacités des organisations de producteurs membres de la FIPA (PRC) UPA DI UPA DI 5262 Africa Tanzania Upscaling and improving capacity and services delivered by TASGA TASGA Trias 5263 World World Support to third world farm leader's role in IFAP ZNFU Agriterra 5265 Africa Benin Le développement des services de qualité envers les membres des OP au Bénin FUPRO Agriterra 5269 Asia China Farmer cooperatives and development of a provincial farmers’ federation AEMS Agriterra 5270 Europe Bosnia and

Herzegovina Improve horticultural chain development with farmers in Bosnia-Herzegovina

Zadruga Vocar Agriterra 5271 Africa Burkina Faso Projet de renforcement de 7 cadres régionaux de concertation des Organisations Paysannes (CRCOP)

au Burkina Faso CPF Agriterra 5272 Africa Kenya Training Financial Management for POs in East Africa EAFF Agriterra 5274 Africa Ivory Coast Renforcer le rôle de l’ANOPACI dans l’élaboration des politiques agricoles et rurales, et redynamiser

ses OPA membres ANOPACI Agriterra 5276 Africa Uganda Consolidation of the National Association for Sugarcane Farmers in Uganda UNASGO Trias 5277 Asia India Upscaling of milk production and milk collection by women small holder producers IIMF Agriterra 5278 Latin america Peru Mujeres y Jóvenes inciden en la agricultura sostenible y seguridad alimentaria (II etapa) CNA Agriterra 5281 Asia Nepal Small orthodox tea farmers go for cooperatives! TEASEC Agriterra 5283 Africa Ethiopia Assistance to Fair Trade cooperatives to comply with FLO and organic standards and increase

market access SCFCU Agriterra 5284 Asia Philippines Strengthening Advocacy and Breaking Ground for Market Engagement AFA Agriterra 5285 Asia Philippines Enriching Organisational Competency towards Productivity Enhancement and Enterprise Development PASAKA Agriterra 5287 Africa Kenya Enriching the farmer's voice KENFAP Agriterra 5289 World World Prospection in countries in transition and fragile states Agriterra Agriterra 5290 Africa Congo, D.R. Commercialisation du miel en RD Congo (région Kivu du Sud) ASALI Agriterra 5292 Europe Armenia Enhancing the Organizational and Technical Capacity of the FAA and its member FOs FAA-ULE Agriterra 5294 Africa Madagascar les paysans se concertent pour être une force de proposition réelle à l’élaboration et mise en

œuvre des politiques agricoles CDAM Agriterra 5296 Latin america Mexico Positioning small Mexican producers in the (inter)national Fair Trade market CM Agriterra 5297 Africa Kenya Strategy set-up and leaders' training on recruitment and sustained services to members KCGA Agriterra 5299 Latin america Bolivia Promover el turismo solidario comunitario en Bolivia TUSOCO Agriterra 5300 Asia Philippines Consolidation and Strengthening of WOPD Guindulman WOPD Agriterra 5301 Africa Niger PROJET POUR L’APPUI A L’ELABORATION DU PLAN STRATEGIQUE PLURI ANNUEL DE MOORIBEN FUGPN - Mooriben Agriterra 5302 Latin america Nicaragua Consolidación del Nivel Organizacional y Visión Empresarial de Productores y Productoras de UNAG

Chontales UNAG Chontales Agriterra 5303 Africa Kenya Follow up Strategic Plan of the Eastern Africa Farmers Federation EAFF Agriterra

114


project region country title executor agri-agency 5304 Latin america Costa Rica Consolidación Institucional y productiva de la Coordinadora de Mujeres Campesinas de Costa Rica CMC Agriterra 5310 Africa Tanzania Capitalisation of rural market development FERT Agriterra 5311 Latin america Bolivia Descentralizando y ampliando el programa de campesino a campesino AOPEB Agriterra 5312 Africa Burkina Faso Réussir le passage d’une agriculture de subsistance à une agriculture de marché à la FEPPASI FEPPASI Agriterra 5313 Africa Mali Accès des éleveurs pasteurs aux marchés et à la commercialisation du bétail Amadane Agriterra 5314 Africa Congo, D.R. Augmentation des revenus du producteur agricole par la restauration des capacités productives

à la base et la viabilisation de l’union et des coopératives primaires Coocenki Agriterra 5315 Europe Netherlands AgriPool management to increase peer to peer advisory services Agriterra Agriterra 5316 Africa Madagascar Plan d’Action pour la Souverainité Alimentaire et la Professionnalisation des Agriculteurs (PASAPA) 2009 FEKRITAMA Agriterra 5317 Africa Guinea Des organisations paysannes fortes pour lutter contre la pauvreté en Guinée FPFD AFDI 5318 Africa Chad Augmenter durablement et mieux utiliser les productions vivrières pour contribuer à une réduction

de la vulnérabilité alimentaire des ménages dans la région du Logone Oriental ATADER AFDI 5319 Africa Madagascar Augmenter durablement et mieux utiliser la production vivrière des membres de la Maison des Paysans

(MdP) MdP AFDI 5320 Africa Madagascar Contribuer à la mise en place et à l’opérationnalisation des centres de services agricoles dans sept

régions du sud de Madagascar AFDI AFDI 5322 Latin america Bolivia Nueva tecnología para el intercambio de conocimientos e información agroecológica AOPEB Agriterra 5323 Asia Cambodia Towards an independent and growing Farmers Nature Network FNN Agriterra 5324 Africa Congo, D.R. Renforcement des fédérations agricoles au Nord-Kivu plan opérationnel 2009 SYDIP Agriterra 5325 Africa Tanzania Strengthening Middle level Networks of MVIWATA Mviwata Agriterra 5326 Africa Ivory Coast Renforcement de capacites des membres pour une economie cacaoyère durable COPAO Agriterra 5329 Asia Jordan Capacity building and economic empowerment for rural women and girls Specific union for farmer

women in Jordan Agriterra 5330 Asia Palestina A stronger Union heading towards poverty reduction among farmer members PFU Agriterra 5331 Africa Congo, D.R. Accroître la production Tilapia des coopératives primaires pour améliorer leurs revenus (intensification

economique et organisationnelle de 24 cooperatives primaires et de l'union). UCOPIS Agriterra 5332 World World Farmers in business: An Agriterra business plan competition for agricultural cooperatives Agriterra Agriterra 5334 Africa Mali Appui au renforcement institutionnel des Aopp régionales et dynamisation des commissions de travail de

l'Aopp AOPP Agriterra 5335 Asia Cambodia Special services on Loan Protection and Life Saving CCSF Agriterra 5337 Asia India Further uniting the farmers of India! CIFA Agriterra 5338 Latin america Mexico Formación de 80 dirigentas de las coordinaciones estatales AMMOR Agriterra 5339 Africa Tanzania Support to rice production groups from Morogoro Region, Tanzania MVUMU FERT 5341 Africa Tanzania Amélioration de l'accès aux services financiers en zones rurales de la région Arusha FERT FERT 5343 Africa Madagascar Projet de Mise en Place de Centres de Services Agricoles (CSA) dans les régions Amoron'i Mania,

Vakinankaratra et Menabe à Madagascar FIFATA FERT

5344 Africa Madagascar Mise en place de Fonds Régionaux de Développement Agricole pilotes dans les régions Amoron'i Mania et Menabe à Madagascar FIFATA FERT

5345 Africa Madagascar Le CEFFEL (Centre d'Expérimentation et de Formation en Fruits et Légumes) pour accompagner la structuration et l'organisation de la filière fruits et légumes FIFATA FERT

5346 Europe Albania Mise en place du plan stratégique de développement durable et intégré de la Commune de Voskopojë en Albanie ADAD FERT

115

project region country title executor agri-agency 5348 Africa Sierra Leone Advisory trajectory for NAFSL and Muloma Agriterra Agriterra 5349 Asia Vietnam Capacity building for aquaculture farmers to ensure safe, profitable products and environmental

protection NDFU Agriterra 5350 Africa Mali A Gao, Ségou, Koulikoro et Sikasso, des associations d’organisations paysannes consolident leurs actions

économiques et leur stratégie de développement AOPP AFDI 5351 Africa Madagascar Projet d’appui au développement des filières riz, manioc et légumes secs par le renforcement des

capacités techniques, économiques et organisationnelles des organisations paysannes des régions Sud de Madagascar AFDI AFDI

5354 Asia Vietnam Sedge value chain development NBCA Agriterra 5355 Asia Thailand strengthening the membershipbase through topic-based lobby and economic activities SorKorPor Agriterra 5356 Africa Rwanda PLAN D’ACTIONS 2009: RESTRUCTURATION ET APPUI AUX FILIERES IMBARAGA Agriterra 5357 Latin america Uruguay Fortalecimiento de las capacidades tecnicas y gremiales de las cooperativas agropecuarias de CAF CAF Agriterra 5359 Africa Ghana Strenghening of FBO’s to enhance agricultural development and economic growth FONG Agriterra 5361 Africa Kenya KENFAP micro projects (2nd phase) KENFAP Agriterra 5364 Asia Vietnam Sustainable model of safe tea and organic tea TNFU Agriterra 5365 World World Evaluation of Dutch support to capacity development: the Agriterra case Agriterra Agriterra 5369 Latin america Brazil Gestao e desenvolvimento institucional na Fetraf sul FETRAF-SUL Agriterra 5372 Africa Kenya Strengthening the Pyrethrum Grower Association (PGA) KENFAP - PGA Agriterra 5376 Asia Philippines ESFIM: Agricultural Commodity Exchange System (ACES) for the Philippines FFF Agriterra 5381 Latin america Peru ESFIM: Potenciar a los pequeños productores en los mercados en Perú JNC Agriterra 5382 Latin america Peru Caracterizacion del sector lacteo y elaboracion de propuestas viables para el mejoramiento de las cadenas

productivas regionales AGALEP Agriterra 5385 Africa Uganda Economic Empowerment through Cooperatives (YEECO), Phase II UCA SCC 5387 Africa Tanzania Agro-Pastoralists Productivity Improvement Project MVIWAMO SCC 5388 Africa Kenya Strengthening and capacity building of the partner organisations of ICA Regional office for Africa ICA SCC 5390 Africa Kenya CEEDCo project SCC SCC 5395 Africa East-Africa Leadership for Change (LFC) phase II UCA SCC 5397 Africa Uganda Community Empowerment through Cooperative Financial Services (CECFIS) phase II UCA SCC 5400 Africa East-Africa Gender Mainstreaming Project SCC SCC 5401 Africa East-Africa Mainstreaming HIV and AIDS in partner, SCC , and Vi Agro-forestry development work SCC SCC 5403 Africa Southern Africa Technical and methodological support to financial management SCC SCC 5404 Africa Zambia ZNFU Support Programme ZNFU SCC 5405 Africa Zambia Eco-marketing Project OPPAZ SCC 5406 Africa Zambia Smallholder Drought Mitigation Project (SDMP) ZNFU SCC 5409 Africa Southern Africa Regional Study Circle Support Project SCC SCC 5410 Africa Southern Africa SACAU and National Farmers Organisation Capacity Building SACAU SCC 5412 Africa Southern Africa Regional Gender Project SCC SCC 5413 Africa South Africa Regional HIV and AIDS (Mitigation and Response) Project SCC SCC 5417 Latin america Central america Contributing to rural development in Latin america through agro-ecology MAELA SCC 5419 Latin america Costa Rica Strengthening of agricultural self-managing cooperative movement FECOOPA SCC 5420 Latin america Costa Rica Business and marketing management of organic produce CEDECO SCC 5422 Latin america El Salvador Business development of cooperatives and women’s committees CONFRAS SCC 5425 Latin america Guatemala Increase in productivity and improvement in the quality of coffee FEDECOCAGUA SCC

116


project region country title executor agri-agency 5427 Latin america Honduras Improvement of the business capacity of campesino organisations ACAN SCC 5428 Latin america Honduras Strengthening campaigning strategies in ‘Via Campesina La Vía Campesina SCC 5429 Latin america Honduras Organisational and business development of ACAN ACAN SCC 5430 Latin america Honduras Develop the economic and business capacity of FECORAH FECORAH SCC 5433 Latin america Nicaragua Strengthening of the self-management capacities of primary cooperative societies PRODECOOP SCC 5434 Latin america Nicaragua Business development in FEMUPROCAN cooperatives FEMUPROCAN SCC 5437 Latin america Nicaragua Business and organisational development CECOCAFEN SCC 5439 Latin america Paraguay Sustainable associative development of the rural sector FECOPROD SCC 5440 Latin america Paraguay Efficient associative businesses ONAC SCC 5441 Latin america Paraguay Improving political advocacy in MCNOC and its work on equal inclusive rural development MCNOC SCC 5442 Latin america Paraguay Articulation and advocacy of Paraguayan campesino organisations for public policies aimed at the

campesino and indigenous sector MCDR SCC 5443 Latin america Paraguay Building strategies for gender-equal rural development in the cooperative movement CONPACOOP SCC 5447 Latin america Brazil Training to improve capacity in formulating proposals in the MST-Bahia AECA SCC 5448 Latin america Paraguay Improvement in the business management of savings and credit entities CI SCC 5451 Latin america El Salvador Strengthening of the organisational and productive capacities of women affiliated to CNMC AMSATI SCC 5453 Latin america Honduras Organisational development of CONAMUCOPHL CONAMUCOPHL SCC 5454 Latin america Paraguay Political advocacy of campesino and ethnic women CONAMURI SCC 5455 Latin america El Salvador Process of integration and advocacy in the Salvadoran cooperative Movement FEDECACES SCC 5456 Latin america Nicaragua Advocacy for Cooperative Integration and Development SCC SCC 5458 Latin america Central america National networking in Latin america (Coordination, advocacy, moulding of opinion, communication) SCC SCC 5459 Europe Ukraine Organisational strengthening AFLOU and its regional organisations AFLOU SCC 5460 Europe Moldova Development of rural communities through participatory knowledge transfer AGROinform SCC 5461 Europe Moldova Cooperation as a tool to improve farmers’ welfare in Moldova AGROinform SCC 5462 Europe Albania Development of rural cooperatives OAAA SCC 5470 Asia Vietnam Development of agricultural cooperative business and service unions in Bac Ninh Province VCA SCC 5471 Asia Vietnam Strategies for cooperative development (Vietnam) VCA SCC 5481 Africa Kenya ESFIM: Empowering Smallholder Farmers in the Market in Kenya KENFAP Agriterra 5483 Africa Mali Forest Connect au Mali - mise en oeuvre du plan 2009 AOPP Agriterra 5484 Latin america Brazil Family Agriculture plants School meals UNICAFES NACIONAL Trias 5485 Africa Zambia Addressing Cotton Farmers Needs CAZ Agriterra 5486 Africa Uganda Demystifying Financial Management for Cooperatives in Uganda UCA Agriterra 5487 Africa Burkina Faso Les OP du Burkina Faso construisent des propositions pour enrichir le dispositif de vulgarisation - conseil

agricole proposé par le gouvernement CPF AFDI 5488 Africa Madagascar Renforcer l'Adaps pour structurer et développer les filières agricoles ADAPS AFDI 5489 Latin america Brazil Project of Empowerment of Women’s Initiatives Unicafes - BA Trias 5490 Latin america Bolivia Red de inteligencia de mercados organizativo y asociativo de las OECAs CIOEC-B Agriterra 5492 Latin america Peru Consolidacion y fortalecimiento de la CONAMUCC y CONAJOC JNC Agriterra 5493 Latin america Peru Fortalecimiento del procesos de desarrollo territorial y consolidación de propuestas politicas de la JNC JNC Agriterra 5495 Asia India Financial management training for finance officers and managers of POs in S-W Asia CKO Agriterra 5496 Latin america Bolivia Una administracion y gestion más eficiente y mejores servicios comerciales para los miembros FECAFEB Agriterra 5498 World World Access to PO-focused training modules Agriterra Agriterra 5500 Africa Uganda Adapted financial services for collective farmers enterprises in Mbarara district EBO Trias

117

project region country title executor agri-agency 5502 World World PIPGA training and sensitization of PO's Agriterra Agriterra 5508 Europe Albania Initiatives Montagne - phase 3 : appui au mouvement d’organisation professionnelle en Albanie ADAD FERT 5509 Africa Madagascar Le CEFFEL (Centre d’Expérimentation et de Formation en Fruits et Légumes) pour accompagner la

structuration et l’organisation de la filière fruits et légumes FERT FERT 5513 Asia Nepal Micro finance for rural poor women and micro insurance: Up-scaling services and enhancing

growth in Saving and Credit Cooperatives NEFSCUN Agriterra 5514 Africa Burkina Faso Participation des OP aux politiques agricoles : valoriser l’expérience du Sénégal et du Mali dans

les processus de LOA AFDI AFDI 5518 Latin america Uruguay ESFIM: Potenciar a los pequeños productores en los mercados en Uruguay (Servicios de asesoria) CAF Agriterra 5519 Asia Philippines Philippines' Farmers for Food Agriterra Agriterra 5523 Asia Nepal Strengthening tea cooperatives and its district federations TEASEC Agriterra 5526 Africa Ethiopia Improvement of Milk Quality of Selale Cooperative Union SDCU Agriterra 5527 Africa Ethiopia Increase of oilseed production - the creation of a trainings unit AFCU Agriterra 5529 Africa Ethiopia Capacity building for Bedele Farmers Cooperative Union BBFCU Agriterra 5534 Africa Congo, D.R. Renforcer les capacités, la production et la productivité des cooperatives des agri-éleveurs APDIK Agriterra 5541 Africa Congo, D.R. Notre performance renforcée: recherche de marchés, lobbying, crédits LOFEPACO Agriterra 5545 Africa Benin Consolidation des services rendus par l'Anoper à ses membres ANOPER AFDI 5548 Africa Senegal RENFORCEMENT DES CAPACITES D’INTERPELLATIONS ET DE NEGOCIATIONS DU CNCR : Plan d'action

2010 CNCR CSA 5549 Europe Netherlands Climate change and sustainable food production LTO Noord Agriterra 5553 World World IS-Academy on Land Governance for Equitable and Sustainable Development Agriterra Agriterra 5554 Asia India Formation of a women's wing and offering capacity building and livelihood promotion to women

farmers in Andhra Pradesh FFAAP Agriterra 5555 Africa Uganda Consolidation of the farmer ownership model for increased market value share for farmers NUCAFE Trias 5557 World Europese Unie Sensibilisation et éducation au développement en Europe AFDI AFDI 5558 Europe Netherlands Redefining Agriterra. How to improve our services. Agriterra Agriterra 5559 World World Customer analysis and determining of strategic customers of Agriterra Agriterra Agriterra 5560 Asia Indonesia Inclusion of Small Producers in Value Chain through Partnership with Enterprises and linking with

Financial Services API Agriterra 5564 Africa Mali Renforcement de la maîtrise de la filière riz par la plateforme nationale des producteurs de riz du Mali PNPR Mali AFDI 5565 Asia Vietnam Local Cooperative Development in Southern Vietnam HCA SCC 5567 World World IFAJ global initiative - Agricultural journalists worldwide supporting farmers fighting poverty Agriterra Agriterra 5570 Africa Ethiopia Start-up support to forest producers’ organizations Zenbaba AgriCord 5571 Asia Vietnam Start-up support to forest producers' organizations, Quang Tri province, Vietnam QTCA AgriCord 5572 Asia Vietnam Start-up support to forest producers' organizations, Thua Thien Hue province, Vietnam TTHCA AgriCord 5580 Africa East-Africa Farmers in Business Challenge BiD Network Agriterra 5603 Africa Congo, D.R. Technical assistance PSO to farmers organisations in the Great Lake Region (previous component of

FOPAK-NK 4914 project) FOPAC-NK Agriterra 5606 Africa West africa Appui au ROPPA dans l'élaboration et la mise en œuvre de son dispositif de suivi-capitalisation ROPPA CSA 5645 Africa West africa La maîtrise du conseil agricole par les OP : un moyen efficace de prévention et de gestion des risques AFDI AFDI

119

Annex 2B Finding projects on agro-info.net

1. Go to www.agro-info.net

2. Click on the module ‘Projects’ in the main menu (left side).

3. Type the project code (see 4-digit code in 2nd column Annex 3) in the search field in the Project module (right side)

4. Click find

5. Click on the search results (project-title) to see its details The description and results of the project can be found in the upper part of the screen. Please, feel free to click around in the project’s information. On the tab RESULTS you can find more results on the project, e.g. the special services report, reports of previous years (tab: REPORTING). You can also click on the name of the executor to view key data about the organisation or see in which projects this organisation was involved before. Throughout agro-info.net you can find information about projects, organisations, missions, documents, various themes (specialisms), etc.

121

Annex 3 Overview of organisations (clients) in 2007-2010

organisation status level of operations region country agri-agency ACAN client national latin america and the caribbean honduras SCC ACCU client regional asia thailand Agriterra ACWW partner international europe united kingdom Agriterra ADAD europe albania FERT ADAPS africa madagascar AFDI AECA client national latin america and the caribbean brazil SCC AFA client regional asia philippines Agriterra AFCU client local africa ethiopia Agriterra AFLOU europe ukraine SCC AGALEP client national latin america and the caribbean peru Agriterra Amadane client sub-national africa mali Agriterra AMMOR client national latin america and the caribbean mexico Agriterra AMPRO client sub-national latin america and the caribbean honduras Trias AMRU partner national latin america and the caribbean uruguay Agriterra AMSATI client national latin america and the caribbean el salvador SCC ANOPACI client national africa côte d'ivoire Agriterra ANOPER client national africa benin AFDI ANPMYS ex relation national latin america and the caribbean peru Agriterra AOPEB client national latin america and the caribbean bolivia Agriterra AOPP client national africa mali Agriterra APDIK client local africa congo, dem. rep. of Agriterra API prospect national asia indonesia Agriterra APODIP prospect sub-national latin america and the caribbean guatemala Trias AREN client national africa niger Agriterra ARPA client sub-national africa benin AFDI ASALI client local africa congo, dem. rep. of Agriterra ATADER client sub-national africa chad AFDI ATPB client national africa togo AFDI BBFCU client local africa ethiopia Agriterra BJ client regional africa mali UPA DI CAF partner national latin america and the caribbean uruguay Agriterra CAPAD client national africa burundi Agriterra CAZ client national africa zambia Agriterra CCA client sub-national latin america and the caribbean el salvador UPA DI CCSF client sub-national asia cambodia Agriterra CDAM prospect sub-national africa madagascar AFDI CDC partner national latin america and the caribbean uruguay Agriterra CECOCAFEN client sub-national latin america and the caribbean nicaragua SCC CEPICAFE client sub-national latin america and the caribbean peru Agriterra


CFAP-Cambodia client sub-national asia cambodia Agriterra CI client national latin america and the caribbean paraguay SCC CIFA ex relation national asia india Agriterra CIMBUSHI client sub-national africa congo, dem. rep. of Agriterra CIOEC-B client national latin america and the caribbean bolivia Agriterra CKO client sub-national asia india Agriterra CLAC ex relation regional latin america and the caribbean el salvador Agriterra CLT ex relation national asia thailand Agriterra CM ex relation national latin america and the caribbean mexico Agriterra CMC client national latin america and the caribbean costa rica Agriterra CNA client national latin america and the caribbean peru Agriterra CNCR client national africa senegal Agriterra CNFR partner national latin america and the caribbean uruguay Agriterra CNOP client africa guinea Trias CNOP-Mali africa mali Agriterra COCLA client national latin america and the caribbean peru Agriterra CoMuVA ex relation national latin america and the caribbean bolivia Agriterra CONAMUCOPHL client national latin america and the caribbean honduras SCC CONAMURI client national latin america and the caribbean paraguay SCC CONAPLE ex relation national latin america and the caribbean bolivia Agriterra Conaprocam client national africa cameroon AFDI CONFECAMPO ex relation national latin america and the caribbean colombia Agriterra CONFRAS client national latin america and the caribbean el salvador Agriterra CONPACOOP client national latin america and the caribbean paraguay SCC CONPAPA prospect local latin america and the caribbean ecuador Trias Conveagro ex relation national latin america and the caribbean peru Agriterra Coocenki client local africa congo, dem. rep. of Agriterra Coop KhemCha client local africa morocco FERT COPAO client local africa côte d'ivoire Agriterra CORPAPA ex relation national latin america and the caribbean peru Agriterra CPF client national africa burkina faso Agriterra CRCR client sub-national africa mali Agriterra CRR-MC prospect africa benin AFDI CSAOCP client sub-national africa niger Agriterra CSF client international latin america and the caribbean costa rica Agriterra DIRFEL client sub-national africa senegal AFDI EAFF client regional africa kenya Agriterra EBO prospect africa uganda Trias FAA partner national latin america and the caribbean argentina Agriterra FAA-ULE client national europe armenia Agriterra Faso Jigi prospect africa mali UPA DI FCMN-NIYA client national africa niger Agriterra

123

FECAFEB ex relation national latin america and the caribbean bolivia Agriterra FECOOPA client national latin america and the caribbean costa rica SCC FECOPROD client national latin america and the caribbean paraguay SCC FECORAH client national latin america and the caribbean honduras SCC FECORSUR ex relation local latin america and the caribbean argentina Agriterra FEDECACES client national latin america and the caribbean el salvador SCC FEDECOCAGUA client sub-national latin america and the caribbean guatemala SCC FEKRITAMA client national africa madagascar Agriterra FEMUPROCAN client national latin america and the caribbean nicaragua SCC FEPA/B client national africa burkina faso Agriterra FEPPASI client sub-national africa burkina faso AFDI FETRAF-Bahia ex relation sub-national latin america and the caribbean brazil Agriterra FETRAF-SUL partner sub-national latin america and the caribbean brazil Agriterra FFAAP client sub-national asia india Agriterra FFF client national asia philippines Agriterra FIFATA client national africa madagascar FERT FNN client national asia cambodia Agriterra FONG client national africa ghana Agriterra FONGS client national africa senegal Agriterra FOPAC-NK client sub-national africa congo, dem. rep. of Agriterra FOPAC-SK client sub-national africa congo, dem. rep. of Agriterra FOP-BG client sub-national africa guinea Trias FPFD client sub-national africa guinea AFDI FUCOPRI client national africa niger Agriterra FUGPN - Mooriben client sub-national africa niger Agriterra FUPRO client national africa benin Agriterra Green Foundation/NISARGA ex relation sub-national asia india Agriterra HCA client regional asia vietnam SCC HODFA client local africa uganda Trias ICA partner international europe switzerland Agriterra IFAP ceased to exist international europe france Agriterra IIMF client sub-national asia india Agriterra IMBARAGA client national africa rwanda Agriterra Impuyaki Cooperative prospect africa rwanda SCC Ingabo client sub-national africa rwanda Agriterra JFU ex relation national asia jordan Agriterra JNC client national latin america and the caribbean peru Agriterra KCGA client national africa kenya Agriterra KCPA client national africa kenya Agriterra KENFAP client national africa kenya Agriterra KENFAP - PGA client sub-national africa kenya Agriterra KIDFA client sub-national africa uganda Agriterra


La Vía Campesina no relation international asia indonesia SCC LAKAMBINI ex relation national asia philippines Agriterra LLTB partner sub-national europe netherlands Agriterra LOFEPACO client local africa congo, dem. rep. of Agriterra LTO Noord partner sub-national europe netherlands Agriterra LUDFA client sub-national africa uganda Agriterra Madfa client local africa uganda Trias Mayawa client africa tanzania Trias MCDR client regional latin america and the caribbean paraguay SCC MCNOC client national latin america and the caribbean paraguay SCC MdP client sub-national africa madagascar AFDI Mialebouni client local africa benin Agriterra MIJARC prospect europe belgium Trias Mvimanya client local africa tanzania Trias Mviwambo client sub-national africa tanzania Agriterra MVIWAMO client sub-national africa tanzania Trias Mviwata client national africa tanzania Agriterra MVUMU africa tanzania FERT NAFSL ex relation national africa sierra leone Agriterra NAJK client national europe netherlands Agriterra NATCCO client national asia philippines Agriterra NBCA client sub-national asia vietnam Agriterra NDFU client sub-national asia vietnam Agriterra NEFSCUN client national asia nepal Agriterra NFFM client national europe moldova, rep. of Agriterra NUCAFE client national africa uganda Agriterra OAAA client national europe albania SCC ONAC client national latin america and the caribbean paraguay Agriterra OPPAZ prospect national africa zambia Agriterra Pachamama Coffee Co-op client regional oceania and north america united states Agriterra PAKISAMA client national asia philippines Agriterra PASAKA client sub-national asia philippines Agriterra PFPN ex relation national africa niger Agriterra PFU client national asia palestinian territory, occupied Agriterra PMBA ex relation national asia philippines Agriterra PNPR Mali africa mali AFDI PRODECOOP client sub-national latin america and the caribbean nicaragua SCC QTCA client sub-national asia vietnam Agriterra RENOP client national africa togo AFDI Réseau Billital Maroobé client regional africa niger Agriterra ROPARWA ex relation national africa rwanda Agriterra ROPPA client regional africa burkina faso Agriterra

125

SACAU client regional africa south africa SCC SCFCU client national africa ethiopia Agriterra SDCU client local africa ethiopia Agriterra Sexagon client sub-national africa mali AFDI SOA client national africa madagascar AFDI SorKorPor client national asia thailand Agriterra SPAR ex relation national latin america and the caribbean peru Agriterra Specific union for farmer women in Jordan client national asia jordan Agriterra SPPQT client sub-national asia indonesia Agriterra SYDIP client sub-national africa congo, dem. rep. of Agriterra TASGA client national africa tanzania Trias TDCU client national africa tanzania Agriterra TEASEC client sub-national asia nepal Agriterra TFC client national africa tanzania Agriterra Tikonna client local africa benin Agriterra TNFU client sub-national asia vietnam Agriterra TTHCA asia vietnam AgriCord TUSOCO client national latin america and the caribbean bolivia Agriterra UAR Plateaux client sub-national africa togo AFDI UCA client national africa uganda Agriterra UCOPIS client local africa congo, dem. rep. of Agriterra UCORIRWA client national africa rwanda Agriterra UCP Grand-Popo client local africa benin Agriterra UDOPER/anoper prospect africa benin AFDI UDPNP client sub-national africa burkina faso FERT UGCPA/BM client africa burkina faso UPA DI UGKo client sub-national africa togo AFDI UGPM prospect africa senegal UPA DI UNAC ex relation national africa mozambique Agriterra UNAG Chinandega client sub-national latin america and the caribbean nicaragua Agriterra UNAG Chontales client sub-national latin america and the caribbean nicaragua Agriterra UNASGO client africa uganda Trias UNFFE client national africa uganda Agriterra UNFFE-Mbarara District Farmers Association client local africa uganda Trias Unicafes - BA prospect regional latin america and the caribbean brazil Trias UNICAFES NACIONAL client national latin america and the caribbean brazil Trias UNICAFES-PR client sub-national latin america and the caribbean brazil Trias UNICKOR client sub-national africa côte d'ivoire AFDI UNILEITE client local latin america and the caribbean brazil FERT UNORCAC ex relation sub-national latin america and the caribbean ecuador Agriterra UOSPA client national africa uganda Agriterra


UPDI client sub-national africa congo, dem. rep. of Agriterra UPP-UF ex relation local africa senegal Agriterra URCO prospect sub-national africa guinea Trias UROCAL ex relation sub-national latin america and the caribbean ecuador Agriterra URPA / AD client sub-national africa benin AFDI URPAL (jadis UPS) client sub-national africa benin Agriterra USAWA client sub-national africa tanzania FERT VCA asia vietnam Agriterra VNFU partner national asia vietnam Agriterra Voz del Campo partner national latin america and the caribbean chile Agriterra WOPD client local asia philippines Agriterra Zadruga Vocar client local europe bosnia and herzegovina Agriterra Zenbaba africa ethiopia AgriCord ZNFU client national africa zambia Agriterra

127

Annex 4 Composition of AgriCord’s General Assembly, Board of Directors and Project Committee

Composition of the General Assembly and Board of Directors in 2010 (22). Member agencies confirm the following names of their delegates in the General Assembly (2 delegates for each agri-agency) and Board (one member for each agri-agency): AFDI: Karen Serres (FNSEA, Présidente de la Commission Nationale des Agricultrices) Laure Hamdi (AFDI, Board AgriCord) Agriterra: Albert Jan Maat (LTO president) Kees Blokland (Agriterra, Board AgriCord) CSA: Yves Somville (FWA) Alex Danau (CSA, Board AgriCord) FERT: Henri de Benoist (AGPB/UNIGRAINS past president) Anne Panel (FERT, Board AgriCord) Trias: Piet Vanthemsche (Boerenbond president) Lode Delbare (Trias, Board AgriCord) SCC: to be confirmed (LRF) Armando Costa Pinto (SCC, Board AgriCord) UPA DI: Christian Lacasse (UPA president) André Beaudoin (UPA DI, Board AgriCord). Names of the delegates of the associated members in the General Assembly: CAP: João Machado (CAP president) CIA: Giuseppe Politi (CIA president) MTK: Tapio Kytölä (MTK, also member of the Board) UPA: Lorenzo Ramos Silva (UPA Secretary General) Composition of the Project Committee in 2010 (10) • Coussement, Ignace (chair) • Couture, Martin (UPA DI) • Dorsten, Frank van (Agriterra) • Eeckloo, Patrick (Trias) • Jamsen, Pekka (Finland) • Kimanzu, Ngolia (SCC) • Poznanski, Marek (CSA) • Souharse, Anne (AFDI) • Wirt, Nathalie (FERT) Composition of the Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) task team • Jamsen, Pekka (AgriCord) • Vervisch, Thomas (Trias) • Kimanzu, Ngolia (SCC) • Schuurman, Jur (Agriterra)

129

Annex 4B Activities of AgriCord’s General Assembly, Board of Directors and Project Committee

The General Assembly The AgriCord General Assembly is composed of a delegate from each agri-agency, generally the executive director and the president of the agri-agency. The meeting of the General Assembly took place on 28th June 2010 in Paris. They approved the accounts of 2009 and the budget for 2010. The General Assembly accepted CSA (Collectif Stratégies Alimentaires), the agri-agency of FWA Fédération Wallonne d’Agriculture, and CAP (Confederação dos Agricultores de Portugal), as associated member of AgriCord. Upon recommendation of the Board of AgriCord, the General Assembly unanimously elected Piet Vanthemsche, president of Boerenbond (Belgium) to be the president of AgriCord for the term of 2010 till 2012. In this new composition, IFAP is not represented anymore, due to the liquidation of IFAP. The Board of Directors The Board of Directors consists of staff members of the agri-agencies. In principle the managing directors, the president of AgriCord, the managing director, and possibly delegates from associated members. The board met six times during 2010, through conference calls (3) and meetings (3). Some of the issues in 2010 were related to: • Rules and procedures for AgriCord in the framework of contacts with LRQA • Finalisation of the “Farmers Fighting Poverty 2011-2014” new document • Funding perspectives for Farmers Fighting Poverty • Composition and mandate of M&E task-team • MoU with IFAP. This MoU was cancelled, due to liquidation of IFAP • The overall working of AgriCord: budget, accounts, statutes, rules of association,

country focal points, approaches in the field

Project Committee The project committee is composed of representatives of each agri-agency, and the ‘backdonor coordinators’. The coordinators are responsible for the distribution of funds from their back-donor. The committee is chaired by the managing director of AgriCord. The project committee is an advisory committee to the Board of Directors of AgriCord. The Board decides on the formation, objectives and authority of the project committee, and confirms the decisions the project committee makes. The AgriCord Board adopted a “learning by doing” approach for the project committee work procedure. Any modification to the procedure proposed by the committee has to be submitted to the Board for confirmation. During 2010 the regularity of meetings of the project committee increased to once every two weeks (15 consultations, either through conference calls or e-mail). A total of 57 project proposals were discussed during 2010. Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) task team The M&E task-team which consists of representatives of the agri-agencies, coordinates and advises on the harmonization of procedures. Its purpose is to improve the efficiency of the M&E functions in the Farmers Fighting Poverty programme. It consolidates AgriCord’s role for: • Coordination of activities of member agencies in monitoring and evaluation • Facilitation of exchanges on horizontal themes • Promote information sharing within the AgriCord-network • Coordination of stakeholder relations, particularly relations with IFAP DCC and its

members

130


Finland’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs supports this particular part of AgriCord’s work since 2007. The M&E task team works as part of AgriCord’s Project Committee, and involves senior staff of Agriterra, Trias and SCC and Pekka Jamsen (Finland). In 2010, CSA expressed an interest in being involved in the team as well. The team promotes coordination of the work of the different agri-agencies by providing working documents and by proposing joint procedures for planning, monitoring and evaluation, for country mapping, for organisational profiling, etc. A meeting was organised by the team on March 12, 2010 to allow for sharing and discussing the current available information on the progress of Farmers Fighting Poverty, and to formulate recommendations for the future strategy. Recent studies and evaluations were included in the discussion: the DGIS mid-term performance audit, the SIDA/SCC mid-term review, the DGIS-IOB capacity development evaluation, the KIT (Royal Tropical Institute) study on the Strengthening of farmer-led economic development and AgriCord’s Evidence on Impact 2009. The discussion focused on 6 themes: • Focus on strengthening producer organisations • Funding goes with farmer-to-farmer advisory services • AgriCord networking ambition • Pro-active vs. demand-driven • In-country presence of agri-agencies • Billions pledged to agriculture, what about farmer organisations? More information about the activities of the various bodies within AgriCord can be found in AgriCord’s report on 2010 (chapter 2 Inside AgriCord).

131

Annex 5 Work area managers

133

Annex 6 Budgetary importance and targets per work area

This Annex consists of two tables: a comparison of relative spending per work area and an overview of the extent to which work area targets have been reached. The most important conclusions that can be drawn from these two tables: • despite the 2010 funding problem, the main target was reached in 11 out of 19

work areas (areas 3 - 5 and 12 – 19) • in many cases where the target was not reached, realisation fell short only a little • if one looks at the actual spending shares in the different work areas, there are

eight of them where this share was higher than planned: 1, 3 - 5, 8, 11, 18 and 19.

There is, therefore, no indisputable direct relation between ‘spending relatively more than expected’ and ‘reaching more targets than expected’. Three of the eight work areas in which was spent more than expected, did not reach their principal target: participatory policy generation (1), insurance and financial services (8), market and chain development (11). See chapter III.3 for an analysis of some work areas, which will also tackle this issue. Relative spending per work area What has happened within each specific work area? We answer these questions in the first place by giving an overview of the relative spending per work area of the budget (see the table below). Relative budgetary importance of work areas 2007-2010 Planning

FFP 2007-2010

Nr. of realised projects

Realisation 2007-2010 (actual spending %)

Work area 1: Participatory policy formulation 12,2% 44 13,2% Work area 2: Financial management 3,4% 12 1,3% Work area 3: Organisational strengthening 7,0% 81 13,7% Work area 4: Institutional development 8,1% 39 12,5% Work area 5: Grassroots participation 8,9% 107 16,2% Work area 6: Training modules 5,8% 10 2,7% Work area 7: Agricultural development 5,6% 36 5,5% Work area 8: Insurance etc. 2,9% 18 4,4% Work area 9: Inputs for agriculture 2,9% 5 0,6% Work area 10: Agricultural extension 5,6% 12 1,8% Work area 11: Market and chain development 6,6% 75 13,2% Work area 12: Research for Development in Agriculture (ARD) 1,8% 6 0,1% Work area 13: Other services incl HIV/AIDS 1,1% 11 0,7% Work area 14: Gender 6,2% 26 2,4% Work area 15: ICT 4,9% 12 1,4% Work area 16: Diversification in agriculture (agro-tourism) 5,8% 9 0,8% Work area 17: Setting up a cooperative 8,3% 38 3,8% Work area 18: Strengthening of support 0,9% 15 2,9% Work area 19: M&E 1,9% 14 2,4% TOTALS 100% 570 100% The percentages for the work areas where expenditure realisation exceeded expectations are represented in bold. As regards the reached targets, we refer to the following table.

134


Accomplishment of targets - Main target of the work area

1. Participatory Policy Planning plan FFP

2007-2010 Realisation 2007-2010

Main target

reached? - support of lobby processes 60 51

- number of experts in the use of PGPP 20 16

- number of formulated policy plans 250 84 N

- number of supported/approved policy plans 125 35

2. Financial management plan FFP 2007-2010

Realisation 2007-2010

Main target

reached? - project is about support of financial management

50 42

- orgs. with improvement of financial management

45 31 N

- organisations participating in a financial management training

100 204

- organisation formulating a financial planning for a business initiative

20 6

3. Strengthening internal organisation plan FFP 2007-2010


Main target

reached? - number of organisations doing SWOT analyses or business planning sessions

50 224 Y

- number of strategic plans formulated or improved

115 33

- orgs. developing a manual for internal procedures

20 16

- orgs. improving internal communication throughout the entire organisation

20 29

- orgs. strengthening the Human Resource capacity

40 63

- orgs. developing or strengthening their monitoring and evaluation system

35 21

4. Institutional development plan FFP 2007-2010


Main target

reached? - number of positioning programmes (breakdown: below)

60 120 Y

- projects making a stakeholder analysis 12 14

- orgs. establishing or improving relations with suppliers

12 14

- orgs. establishing or improving relations with buyers

11 25

- orgs. initiating or improving collaborations with local/ national governments

25 41

135

5. Grassroots participation plan FFP

2007-2010 Realisation 2007-2010

Main target

reached? - number of participating national organisations 20 41

- number of formed or reached local self-help groups

2.750 12.910 Y

6. Development of training modules plan FFP 2007-2010


Main target

reached? - number of courses organized in developing countries

52 49 N

- elaboration of cooperative management course - >

1 11

- projects producing a manual for a particular training

12 13

7. Agricultural development plan FFP 2007-2010


Main target

reached? Uses or facilitates access to innovative techniques on cultivating certain crops

32 42

Org.developing or improving tools to increase the decision making and farm management capacity of their members

18 11 N

8. Banking & credit, incl. insurance plan FFP 2007-2010


Main target

reached? Projects improving access to financial services in the area of insurance facilities

6 5 N

Projects improving access to financial services in the area of banking, saving and credits

8 12

9. Inputs for agriculture (IFDC collaboration in W-Africa) *

plan FFP 2007-2010


Main target

reached? - improved access to inputs 20 12 - increase in sustainable production 15 20 - increase in food security (t.g.e.) 15 15 - increase in agricultural productivity 15 12 N

10. Agricultural extension plan FFP 2007-2010


Main target

reached? - number of orgs. with farmer field schools 20 18 N

136


11. Market and chain development plan FFP 2007-2010


Main target

reached? - number of organisations participating 80 61

- number of formulated chain innovation projects

65 49 N

Projects focusing on chain analysis 15 26

12. Research for development in agriculture

plan FFP 2007-2010


Main target

reached? Projects empowering farmers' organisations to get impact on the national agricultural research agenda

4 4 Y

Projects using research results in the practicality of farmers to modernise agriculture

3 3

Orgs. accomplishing participation in decision forum for the spending of public funds for research

1 0

13 Other services, including HIV/AIDS tackling

plan FFP 2007-2010


Main target

reached? - number of projects on energy 2 2

- number of projects on HIV/AIDS 5 13 Y - number of projects on land reform 4 3

Number of projects on other services 4 7

14. Gender and women in development plan FFP 2007-2010


Main target

reached? - number of women participating in projects 989.348 1.783.091 Y Projects developing an economic activity with at least 30% women participants

251 25

Training activities on women empowerment 126 280 Number of new or improved strategic plans/business plans including a part on gender

123 24

15. Information and communication technology

plan FFP 2007-2010


Main target

reached? - number of telecenters established 24 26 Y - number of organisations with an improved website, e.g. through AIN

120 27

Projects where as a result ICT is used as a tool for extension and/or other service delivery

9 12

Market information is disseminated making use of ICT's

7 5

New software (possibly CoopWorks, Pastel, Sage) is implemented to support organisational performance

14 5

137

16. Agrotourism plan FFP 2007-2010


Main target

reached? - number of new travel destinations in t.a. brochures

7 7 Y

Number of timber and non forest products developed

5 2

17. Processing of agricultural products plan FFP 2007-2010


Main target

reached? number of business initiatives preferably cooperative societies

20 30 Y

Number new or improved business plans 8 153 Number new or improved feasibility studies 10 8

18. Involvement of constituency in OECD countries

plan FFP 2007-2010


Main target

reached? - number of events inter-agri-agencies 12 6

- number of public events in Europe and Canada

20 38 Y

19. Monitoring and evaluation plan FFP 2007-2010


Main target

reached? - number of profilings 150 189 Y - number of mappings 75 25

Number of project evaluations initiated by M&E unit

16 23

Number of solutions produced 24 10

Number of stories 150 200

138


The accomplished outreach of almost 4,6 million people was distributed as follows over the work areas. Number of participants per work area, 2007-2010 Outreach (participants) per Work Area: Plan Realisation 1. Participatory Policy Planning 184.545 280.629 2. Financial management 2.532 1.340 3. Internal organisational strengthening 98.069 494.543 4. Institutional development 78.063 1.361.187 5. Grassroots participation and membership drive 455.073 637.734 6. Development of training modules 25.019 217.063 7. Agricultural development 227.606 224.733 8 Banking, credit, insurance 109.303 230.150 9. Inputs for agriculture 99.023 22.117 10. Agricultural extension 231.724 104.809 11. Market and chain development 120.037 603.140 12. Research for development in agriculture 23.054 3.079 13 Other services, including HIV/AIDS 130.080 41.240 14. Gender and women in development 255.091 65.615 15. Information and communication technology 581.956 67.397 16. Agro-tourism 45.136 5.824 17. Processing of agricultural products 69.083 154.975 18. Involvement of constituency in OECD countries 28 74.061 19. Monitoring and evaluation 26 7 Total 2.735.44834

4.589.643

Source: www.agro-info.net

34 This is different from the 3,2 million mentioned on the previous page. The explanation is that in this table only individual people were counted, while the 3,2 million includes possibilities of double counting.

139

Annex 7 List of profiled organisations

140


Annex 7B Explanation of leading indicators of the profiling

Representation indicator Gives an indication of the width and relevance of the external relations of the organisation and the influence of the organisation in these relations. Also included is the presentation to the outside world. Lagging indicator Type Weight Formal presence in and relevance of governmental/parliamentary bodies

Predefined Score

1

Functions in governmental/parliamentary bodies Predefined Score

0,5

In-country cooperation linkages and memberships and their relevance

Predefined Score

1

Functions in In-country cooperation linkages and memberships

Predefined Score

0,5

Cooperation with research institutes Predefined Score

0,5

Policy proposals to the government Predefined Score

1

International memberships Predefined Score

1

Functions in international memberships Predefined Score

0,5

International relations Predefined Score

1

Private Enterprises Predefined Score

1

Presence in the media Predefined Score

1

Quality of website Predefined Score

1

Emphasis on propositions in stead of protest Score 1 Number of visits of foreign delegations to PO Fact 1 Number of PO's visits abroad Fact 1 Participation indicator Gives an indication of the degree of involvement of the members in policy- and decision-making and in the activities of the organisation. Lagging indicator Type Weight Total number of men and women that participated in consultation and trainings organised by the PO as percentage of the total represented members. If the participation is higher then the total number of members, a 100% score is allocated (%)

Fact 1

Circulation members' newsletter (number of copies x frequency of publication) as percentage of the total represented members. If higher than 100%, a score of 100% is allocated (%)

Fact 1

Participation of members in policy-making and preparation

Score 1

General Assembly at organisational layers (as % of total layers) If there is a General Assembly at every organisational layer a score of 100% is allocated.

Fact 1

141

Representation of social categories in board (maximum of 4 groups). Groups are indicated by the organisation itself. If all groups are represented, a score of 100% is allocated. If less, the number of groups that has representation in relation to the total number of social groups (%).

Fact 1

Number of paying members (as % of total) Fact 1 Accountability indicator Gives an indication of the degree to which the leaders report to the members about results of the organisation and the possibilities for the members to control the organisation and the board. Lagging indicator Type Weight Presence of annual report (yes = 1, no = 0) 0/1 0,5 Formal general assembly (yes = 1, no = 0) 0/1 1 Annual financial (profit/loss, balance) statement (yes = 1, no = 0)

0/1 0,5

Annual financial statement audited (externally = 1; internally = 0,5; no = 0)

0/1 0,5

Membership registration system (yes = 1, no = 0) 0/1 1 Means and quality of internal communication Score 1 Real internal protest possibilities of members Score 1 Real possibilities (ease) to change board prematurely Score 1 Number of local chapters represented at General Assembly (as % of total)

Fact 1

Quality of General Assembly Predefined Score

1

Autonomy (organisational independence) Score 1 Strategic potential Gives an indication of the capacity of the organisation and its members to pursue long-term goals. Included are the services provided by the organisation and the income they generate, and the ability of an organisation and its members to engage in strategy development. Lagging indicator Type Weight Total number of men and women (days) that participated in consultation and training in preparation and evaluation of policy proposals and in organisational skills training as percentage of the total represented members. If higher than 100%, a 100% score is allocated (%).

Fact 1

Total income of services, contracts and economic activities (as % of total income)

Fact 1

Own enterprise as aspiration Predefined Score

1

Quality of PO’s strategy document Predefined Score

1

Participation of members in policy-making and preparation

Score 1

Autonomy Score 1 Active youth policy (yes = 1, no = 0) Fact 0,5

142


Professional capacity Gives an indication of the expertise and implementation capacity of the organisation. Lagging indicator Type Weight Quality of Human Resource Policy Predefined

Score 1

Separation of policy and management processes Predefined Score

1

PO’s formalisation in statutes, regulations, procedures Predefined Score

1

Quality of operational plan Predefined Score

1

Quality of reporting Score 1 Number of paid staff (as % of total paid and unpaid staff)

Fact 1

Gender indicator Indicates to which degree an organisation is aware and actually includes gender issues in their activities. Indicator is not applicable to organisations that target women only. Lagging indicator Type Weight Participation of PO's women in external relations (boxes A until E)

Score 1

Mainstreaming of gender issues in external relations (boxes A until E)

Score 1

Gender as part of vision, mission and strategy Score 1 Formalisation gender policy in statutes, regulations and procedures

Score 1

Possibility for women to gain full membership Score 1 Equal gender representation in consultation and training. If the number of females participating is higher than the number of males participating, a score of 100% is allocated (%).

Fact 1

Number of female members(as % of individual members)

Fact 1,5

Female board members (as % of total) Fact 1,5 Female staff (as % of total) Fact 1,5 The last four facts are given a higher weight of 1,5. This is done for two reasons. First changes in these facts represent important changes. Second, the scores of the fact are less variable; they tend to vary between 1 and 7 (10% to 70%), whereas opinions will vary between 1 and 10. Income diversification Gives an indication of the degree an organisation is able to generate its own income or is more dependent on external resources (i.e. donations and subsidies), and the income diversification (i.e. spreading of risk). In formula:

Total Income – Income from donations and subsidies - Standard dev. sources of Income

Total Income

143

To the above outcome 0,4518 is added and the resulting total is multiplied with a factor 100/127 in order to achieve a scale of 0% to 100%. Rate of Organisation Gives the relationship between the number of individual members and the potential target group. If the latter is unknown, then the Economic Active Population in Agriculture (EAP in Agriculture) will be used as target group. In case of a rural women organisation the Female EAP in agriculture will be used as target group. In formula: Number of individual members ________________ Potential number of members to be represented (target group)

145

Annex 8 Overview Story harvesting 2007 - 2010

stories 2007 Title Country Work area remarks

A member of a credit cooperative testifies Tanzania 8 Une gestion financière solide Niger 2 Sowing the seeds Kenya 11 Farmer to farmer services Bolivia 10 not in AIN Un cycle de réflexion d’une année Madagascar 3 Milk money Tanzania 17 not in AIN Conseil à l’exploitation familiale Burkina Faso 7 4 stories

Lobby works Thailand, Congo and Asia 1 3 stories

Coca Cola goed voor mangoboeren, India 17 Lofepaco Congo 14 3 stories, not in AIN Jean Bernard, un agri-éleveur sorti de la pauvreté, Rwanda 8 15 stories in total Stories 2008 Title

Country WA Project nr. Language

agri-agency Quintessence Useful for

Impact statements?

1 With lobby more progress can be made

Rumania 5 4896 UK NL FR SP

Agriterra Obtained lobby position in Brussels

Doubtful (better RPO lobby, but no individual results)

2 Sun flowering Uganda 11 5130 UK NL

Agriterra More savings and income thanks to shift to sunflower production, stimulated by UOSPA

YES

3 Niet trots maar wel gelukkig India 17 4686 NL EN

Agriterra Better life of women farmer thanks to membership of dairy cooperative society

YES


Title


agri-agency Quintessence Useful for Impact statements?

4 Ondernemerschap loont Rumania 5 4896 NL Agriterra Successful owner of agro-shop, but link with (membership of) RPO is not mentioned.

NO

5 Adisson Omer du Bénin recueille le fruit

Benin 4 4959 FR NL

Agriterra Better techniques; availability of credits thanks to UPS

YES

6 Plattelandsvrouwen in India krijgen een gezicht

India 5 5068 NL Agriterra Video, but rather a plan than a report

NO

7 Eveline prend la parole Benin 3 5151 FR NL

Agriterra Many social benefits due to Tikonna membership and individual progress

YES

8 Samenwerken loont India 5 5068 NL Agriterra Better irrigation in village thanks to RPO

Doubtful (not actual impact)

9 Jeanne se fiert de ses forces Benin 4 4959 FR NL

Agriterra Progress of woman farmer thanks to membership of district association

YES

10 Rags to riches Nepal 8 5065 EN Agriterra Empowerment but no economic change; Ms. Thing is chairwoman of a SACCO.

YES

11 Armenian apricots Armenia 3 4969 EN NL

Agriterra Membership of cooperative essential for solving problems in marketing etc.

YES

12 Des pommes de terres hollandaises en Niger

Niger 5 5107 FR NL

Agriterra Better seed-potatoes thanks to mediation of FCMN Niger

YES

13 Bijenhouders in Kenia Kenya 17 4875 NL EN

Agriterra Benefits of membership for income generation

YES

14 More income through organic rice production

Philippines 4 4865 UK NL

Agriterra Better income thanks to FFF organic rice production project

YES

15 Niemand weet alles, iedereen weet iets

Peru 5 4843 NL EN

Agriterra More family involvement because of slogans CAN

YES

16 Bevlogen van bijen Kenya 5 4875 NL Agriterra Much motivation for micro-projects, but not yet results

NO

17 Trots op de tractor Nicaragua 11 5055 NL Agriterra Not enough evidence on benefits or drawbacks of UNAG membership

Not yet

18 Tegera Congo DR 11 4911 FR Agriterra More production because of extension work by RPO

YES

19 Monicah Kenya 5 4875 UK Agriterra Description of activities of NO

147

Title



coop 20 From fresh tomato into tomato

sugar Congo DR 14 4867 FR

EN Agriterra Income increase, but more

theoretical than proven in practical cases

Partly

21 A productive loan Uganda 8 5157 UK NL

Agriterra Member of UCA-affiliated SACCO: got a loan thanks to membership and now his family eats better

YES

22 Beter af dankzij boerenmarkt

Nicaragua 11 5100 NL Agriterra Better income thanks to weekly market for farmers, initiated by UNAG

YES

23 Lezen en schrijven dankzij FEPA/B

Burkina Faso 5 5210 NL Agriterra More profit because of micro-credit, learned to write and read

YES

24 Enhancing quality and timely farm input

Kenya 5 4986 UK Agriterra Higher production and better quality of maize due to farm input shop.

YES

25 Revamping the farm input shop

Kenya 5 4986 UK Agriterra Higher production and better quality of maize due to farm input shop. Maize seeds bought at lower price.

YES

26 Farm input shop Murung’a

Kenya 5 4986 UK Agriterra Farm input shop resulted in higher maize production and self-confidence.

YES

27 Enhancing milk market ability

Kenya 5 4979 UK Agriterra Member got higher price for milk by cutting out middlemen, low transportation costs

YES

28 Honey harvesting

Kenya 5 4984 UK Agriterra After apiary management training beekeeping is easier and women are involved in this man’s activity

YES

29 Pasture and fodder establishment

Kenya 5 4986 UK Agriterra Good harvest with quality materials and training from farm input shop

Doubtful; no comparison with past, attribution problem

30 From traditional to modern maize grinding (2 stories)

Kenya 5 4982 UK Agriterra The maize mill saves time in means of grinding and transportation. The farmer can do other activities

YES

31 Tissue Culture Banana Kenya 5 4976 UK Agriterra After training 99% of banana YES


Title



plantlets got fruits, not yet harvested.

32 Indigenous poultry rearing

Kenya 5 4983 UK Agriterra Switch from local chicken to improved breed: higher price of eggs and higher rate of laying.

YES

33 Modern beekeeping

Kenya 5 4984 UK Agriterra Modern beekeeping is less labour intensive than traditional beekeeping.

NO

34 Improved banana production

Kenya 5 4976 UK Agriterra Training as eye-opener to improve banana production

NO

35 Wonder goats

Kenya 5 4977 UK Agriterra Description of dairy goat project

NO

36 Beehives for all farmers

Kenya 5 4984 UK Agriterra Training for commercial beehives makes includes poor farmers and women.

YES

37 Dairy goat instead of dairy cow

Kenya 5 4977 UK Agriterra Farmers got dairy goat management training. Mik production still low, but expected to improve after breeding goats to pedigree level

YES

38 Fruit and juice production Kenya 5 4982 UK Agriterra High quality juice production, contract with large buyer.

Doubtful: no comparison with past, attribution problem

39 Together we are strong Kenya 5 4984 UK Agriterra Farmers organising in a group have more bargaining power

NO

40 Power to the farmers

Kenya 5 4986 UK Agriterra Increasement of bargaining power and purchasing power that gives the opportunity to invest in other basic needs

YES

41 Selling cotton together

Kenya 5 4980 UK Agriterra Farmers have more bargaining power when selling products in groups. Not yet reached tangible results

NO

42 Honey in the limelight Kenya 5 4984 UK Agriterra Description of project beekeeping and future plans

NO

43 Multipurpose fruit processing

Kenya 5 4982 UK Agriterra Marketing services, transportation and training resulted in higher production

YES

149

Title



and thus higher income 44 Training for better beekeeping

Kenya 5 4984 UK Agriterra Description of the beekeeping project

NO

45 Farmers Communication Centre

Kenya 5 4981 UK Agriterra Project (providing market information to farmers) is still in preparation phase

NO

46 Vrouwen in de UNAG (2 stories)

Nicaragua 11 5100 NL Agriterra Access to credit and training gave member the chance to sell products on the market.

NO

47 Techniques for tea

Vietnam 16 5002 UK NL

Agriterra Training and machines reduced the workload and increased the tea production from 30 to 300 kg per month.

YES

48 A traditional raincoat for tourists

Vietnam 16 5002 UK NL FR

Agriterra Better road, fertilizers and training resulted in higher maize production. Co-operation with university about medicines improved tourism product.

YES

49 Dolobier in Burkina Faso Burkina Faso 5 5210 NL Agriterra More self-esteem. Economic activities thanks to micro credit

YES

50 Non-traditional crops improve the life of Tanzanian farmers

Tanzania 7 5018 EN TRIAS Income and production increased because of introduction of small holder production of vanilla, mushrooms, rosella and jatropha by organisation. But volumes remain too limited to attract large buyers.

YES

51 Timing and colour charts Vietnam 7 ? ? EN TRIAS The average income of increased. This resulted in improved well-being and increased investments.

YES (but not for FFP)

52 Farmers in transition Tanzania 3 5016 EN SCC Households constructed grain storage facilities, producer groups engaged in chicken keeping, doubling prices of honey, but no tangible outcomes yet.

Partly

53 Business at base level Malawi 11 The Malawi EN SCC Thanks to training of PO and YES


Title



Lake Basin Programme

access to seeds and fertilizer, she can sell products and feed her family.

54 It starts with literacy Guinea 5 5197 EN UPA-DI Adaptation of new techniques thanks to literacy and numeracy classes, this led to increased yields and better income

YES

55 Higher yields in Mbarara Uganda 5 5017 EN TRIAS Gained skills, higher yields, improved incomes etc.

YES

56 Better price for the rice Uganda 11 ?? EN SCC Thanks to training and advice of UCA, farmers store rice and get better prices

YES

57 A multiple project approach Zambia 11 2706 / 5031 EN SCC ZNFU is empowered, but no testimonies of members about consequences

NO

58 Sowing without ploughing Morocco 7 4951 EN FERT Income and environmental sustainability increased, but not backed up by farmer

Partly

59 Challenges in Burkina Faso Burkina Faso 17 (?)

2879 (?) EN UPA-DI Production increased has, farmers became strong players in market, decrease farmers’ vulnerability to market fluctuations

Partly (no concrete changes in situation farmers)

60 Positive results, despite negative external trends

El Salvador 7 5091 EN SCC Increased of value of farm plots, higher incomes for 67% of the total population, 34% of the participating household met their basic food needs.

YES

61 Trust and motivation Tanzania 11 4998 EN FERT Empowerment but no economic changes yet

Partly

62 Empowered women thanks to Féderation des Paysans du Fouta Djallon

Guinea 3 (?) 5242 (?) EN UPA-DI Empowerment of women, improved time management, but no economic changes

Partly

63 Exhange visits Burkina, Mali, Madagascar

?? ?? EN AFDI Summary of consequences of exchange visits

Partly (no concrete changes)

64 Power to the women Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, Uganda

14 ???? EN SCC Leaderships roles for women, reduced workload

YES (but minimal examples)

65 Farmers’ exchange works Burkina Faso 7 5030 (?) EN AFDI Increased income for YES

151

Title



participating farmers, better yields

66 New crops in Nicaragua Nicaragua ? ? EN SCC Increased yields, diversification of farm plots, increased income

YES (not for FFP)

67 Farmers know their soil Senegal 5 5255 EN UPA-DI Better management skills for farmers, but no concrete/economic changes

Partly

68 Knowledge utilized is power Kenya 9 4986?? EN SCC Thanks to information from cooperative improved knowledge about passion fruit and more income

YES

69 It’s peanut time Burkina Faso 9 5030? EN AFDI Increase awareness and improved yields and quality by improved farm resource management and innovations

YES

70 Coops cope with external circumstances

Kenya 3/4 OS/ID, market and credit linkages

EN SCC Prices for farmers increased (income increased with) 46%, profitability increased by collective supply of inputs

YES

71 Market linkage transforms fortunes for mango growers in Kenya

Kenya 17 ??? (not in AIN) marketing cooperative

EN SCC Through collective marketing of mangoes and contract with exporter and cooperative, probably more income

Partly (no tangible results yet)

72 Conseil technico-économique augmente des revenues

Guinea 7 4844 FR AFDI Thanks to technical training farmers are able to manage their budget, more long-term perspective, capable in price negotiations.

Doubtful; no comparison with past.

73 Réduction de la vulnérabilité alimentaire en Tchad

Tchad 7 5318 FR AFDI Innovative techniques and training improved knowledge of participating farmers. Family gardens provided elementary food.

YES

74 Autodiagnostics pour ARPA

Benin 3 5227 FR AFDI Organisational improvement but no mentioning of (economic) changes/improvement for farmers

NO

75 Renforcer la structuration Burkina Faso 3 5106 FR UPA-DI Justification for project, but no mentioning of

NO


Title



changes/improvement for farmers

76 L’APCAM améliore Mali 3 5024 FR UPA-DI Justification for project, but no changes/improvement for farmers

NO

77 La évolution de l’Association Nationale des Organisations Professionnelles des Eleveurs de Ruminants

Benin 3 5149 FR AFDI Justification for project, but no changes/improvement for farmers

NO

78 Parlant du tourisme Bolivia 3 5299 FR Agriterra Justification for project, results of project. No examples of changed situation of farmers

NO

79 Café de Peru Peru 3 5140 FR Agriterra Justification for project, but no improvement/changes for farmers

NO

80 Guatémalien café Guatemala 3 5205 FR TRIAS Justification for project, no improvement/changes for farmers

NO

81 Solidarité Estrie-Sénégal: un appui qui porte fruits!

Senegal 5 5255 FR UPA-DI Stimulated economic initiatives: food security for participating farmers, more income, able to pay medicines and school etc.

YES

82 1000s+ and partners build potato cluster in Sikasso

Mali 6 5058 EN IFDC (no agri-agency)

Higher production, bountiful harvest

YES

83 Kenfap’s role during the after election violence in Kenya

Kenya EN Agriterra (Kenfap)

Role of Kenfap during violence in Kenya

NO

Stories 2009 Title Country WA Project

nr. Available in Language

Agri-agency

Quintessence Useful for Impact statements

84 Werken aan een leefbaar platteland

Costa Rica 14 5304 NL EN FR

Agriterra Better position for (rural) women, more equality between men – women. She has her own land and chickens

YES

85 From fresh tomato into Congo DR 14 4867 FR Agriterra Income increase, but more Partly

153

Title Country WA Project nr.

Available in Language

Agri-agency


tomato sugar* EN theoretical than proven in practical cases

86 A productive loan* Uganda 8 5157 UK NL

Agriterra Member of UCA-affiliated SACCO: got a loan thanks to membership and now his family eats better

YES

87 A career switch with good consequences

Moldova 4 5120 EN NL

Agriterra With a loan of NFFM he bought a greenhouse in which he grows seedlings. With colleagues he now exports to Belarus.

YES

88 Profitable bananas Kenya 7 4976 EN Agriterra Farmers can buy improved banana plantlets for their own plots. Harvest will be more and price for these bananas is higher than for the low-quality bananas.

Partly (no tangible results yet)

89 Agro-toerisme in het Amazonewoud

Boliva 16 4950 NL EN FR

Agriterra YES

90 Manioc en lutte contre la faim Mali 5 5143 FR Agriterra (IFDC)

More land for growing manioc, better techniques and intensification. Better production methods more income

Partly, changes are mentioned but as enumeration, it’s not a story

91 Transformation du riz en Mali Mali 5 5143 FR Agriterra (IFDC)

Redynamisation of organisation, alleviation of work, job creation (for 1 miller)

No: no story, only enumeration. No changes in lives of participants

92 De wet van afnemend grensnut

Tanzania 17 4801 NL EN

Agriterra Thanks to TDCU she can sell her milk, TDCU stands surety for payment. Her income has improved just like the amount of her cattle.

YES

93 Zelfbewustzijn onder boeren in Benin

Benin 5 4949 NL EN

Agriterra Thanks to workshops of the LSGT-programme, farmers learned about their rights and improved their negotiationskills.

YES

94 Des grandes changements en quatre années

Burkina Faso 5 5518 FR EN

Agriterra Thanks to FO, women could buy machinery, lent money, stock their harvest, buy fertilizer for low price. This improved her life

YES

95 Tourism is a game Vietnam 16 5002 EN Agriterra With financial support of organisation, she could improve her home stay and received a loan with help of orga.

NO




Agri-agency


96 Becoming a self-sufficient farmer

Thailand 3 5104 EN Agriterra Training of SorKorPor made at least 1 farmer (but 100 participated) self-sufficient

YES

97 Broom making combined with farming

Thailand 3 5104 EN Agriterra Woman started broom making, now receives weekly payment. But changes in life aren’t mentioned

NO

98 Jatropha brings no luck Thailand 3 5104 EN Agriterra Jatropha project failed, because oil prices declined.

NO

99 A new start after the tsunami Thailand 3 5104 EN Agriterra 14 fishermen rebuilt their fish pools and bought baby fish thanks to financial support (but no real improvement)

Partly

100 Kill two birds with one stone Cambodia 3 5244 EN Agriterra Project of Camfad introduced better way how to keep chickens (shelter, no escape possibilities)

NO

101 Farmers’ organisations learn how to cope with HIV/Aids

Uganda 13 5230 EN Agriterra Summary of some member organisations of UNFF that changed policy, introduced alternatives for farmers with HIV etc. But no personal statements

NO

102 Cotton – our white gold Kenya 3 ???? EN Agriterra (Kenya Cotton Growers Association)

Farmer tells about the advantages of cotton growing, but not in relation to organisation/project

NO

103 KCGA holds the strategic planning workshop

Kenya 3 5297 EN Agriterra (Kenya Cotton Growers Association)

Workshop strategic planning led to draft strategic plan

Partly (changes concern organisation)

104 Malagassy schools lack teachers and classrooms

Madagascar 5 - EN Agriterra Local organisation wants to start food security project

NO

105 From business lady into pineapple farmer

Ghana 17 No AgriCord project

EN Agriterra Cooperative provides technical information and assistance and at least 1 farmer now has her own pineapple farm and can pay school fee

YES (but no project with AgriCord)

106 Mannen hebben nu meer respect voor ons

India 14 5234 NL Agriterra Thanks to women project more income and women know their

Partly

155



Agri-agency


rights. But no examples, clarifications in how this happened

107 Iedereen noemt me nu madam

India 14 5234 NL Agriterra Now she is coordinator of women chapter, she’s is treated with respect

NO

108 Moldavische vrouwen leren ondernemen

Moldavië 14 4973 NL Agriterra President of womens’wing of NFFM tells about development of organisation and activities undertaken by orga.

NO

109 Biologische rijst Thailand 3 5355 NL Agriterra Report of some days in the field. Some farmers tell they switched into organic rice because of SKP

NO

110 Betere opbrengst door intensieve landbouw

Burkina Faso 5 5210 NL EN

Agriterra Higher yield thanks to trainings YES

111 Het verhaal van Mama Muvi Congo 11 5324 NL EN

Agriterra Higher yields because of fertilizer (thanks to sheep from Sydip) and advice for potato growing

YES

112 Patience pays Uganda 5 5385 EN SCC Thanks to all kinds of trainings, farm productivity increased enormously

YES

113 Potatoes for development Madagascar 5 5105 EN NL

Agriterra Switch to potatoes thanks to project. Production costs are low and they sell good more income

YES

114 Women take their responsibility

Madagascar 5 5105 EN NL

Agriterra

Thanks to funding and training the poultry breeding improved, she now can save money

YES

115 Des rèves d’une quinquagénaire à Madagascar

Madagascar 5 5105 FR Agriterra Women without job opportunities learned how to raise poultry, grow rice etc.

Partly (despite training no real changes in her situation)

116 Vouloir c’est pouvoir Madagascar 5 5105 FR Agriterra Thanks to training, she now processes milk into yogurt and more milk production

YES

117 Van duizend naar miljoenen: de stand van zaken

West Africa (Mali, Niger, Burkina)

5 5143 NL FR

Agriterra 3 examples: 1. Better rice seeds thanks to microcredit. 2. Fish pools and training created better living conditions for fishermen. 3. Better yield and sales to WFP lead to better lives of farmers

YES

118 Poultry pays out Madagascar 5 5105 EN Agriterra Poultry project lead to more income YES 119 Sheep farming in Palestine Palestine 3 5330 EN Agriterra Thanks to training more knowledge

about sheep diseases YES (but very limited story)




Agri-agency


120 Never lose hope Palestina 3 5330 EN Agriterra Better seeds, training and market possibilities from cooperative

YES

121 PFU for the benefit of Palestinian farmers

Palestina 3 5330 EN (not at AIN, no good

story)

Agriterra Able to market products on local market, preserve family needs. No relation to organisation

NO

122 A powerful Palestinian woman Palestine 3 5330 EN Agriterra More self-confidence and independency for woman thanks to workshop

Partly (no changes in family life mentioned)

123 Organic olive oil from Palestine

Palestine 3 5330 EN Agriterra Courses on quality and higher selling prices, improved produce and income

YES

124 La ferme de Jeannette et Gabriel

Benin 3 5166 FR Agriterra Financial support and technical advice/trainings of NBvP and Mialébouni enlarged the farm and introduced cattle breeding, which reduced costs

Partly (they don’t mention the impact of the changes on

their daily life)

125 Escuelas ecológicas Bolivia 10 5311 SP UPA Training in cultivation techniques improved production of coffee

YES

126 Credit for rice Benin 3 5166 EN Agriterra Thanks to credit of organisation able to start own farm, buy inputs and school material for children

YES

127 Het leven van een Benins boerengezin

Benin 3 5166 NL Agriterra Summary of the life of a farmers ‘family

NO

128 Zebu’s against poverty Madagascar 5 5105 EN Agriterra Zebu project turned out to yield profit for 20 members

YES

129 Op naar de acht ton Madagascar 5 5105 NL EN

Agriterra Project for modern rice techniques improved quality and quantity

YES

130 Ontwikkeling door informatie Madagascar 5 / 15 5105 NL EN

Agriterra ICT-project improved knowledge and communication market information, better prices

YES

131 Goede kwaliteit, maar slechte prijs

Madagascar 5 5105 NL EN

Agriterra Starting with beekeeping improved income and self-esteem. But not everybody in project participated as well as planned

Partly

132 Tegen de gebruiken in Madagascar 5 5105 NL EN

Agriterra Training in women rights and modern techniques for rice farming, improved income of lives (of 10 women)

YES

133 No regrets Madagascar 5 5105 EN Agriterra Production rice farmers increased and better price thanks to huller machine

YES

134 Prince of the rice fields Madagascar 5 5105 EN Agriterra With money out of microproject, Partly (no

157



Agri-agency


the group purchased better seeds, inputs, machinery etc more efficient, they expect better quality

significant results yet, because no

harvest yet) 135 Come one, come all Madagascar 5 5105 EN Agriterra Training and better inputs

increased rice production income increase

YES

136 The shop around the corner Madagascar 5 / 17 5105 EN Agriterra Selling point and trainings in entrepreneurship improved selling opportunities and incomes

YES

137 Pigs and piggies Madagascar 5 5105 EN Agriterra New pig race and trainings improved income

YES

138 The chicken or the egg? Madagascar 5 5105 EN Agriterra Local race chicken and trainings yield more profit

YES

139 Sleeping with cows Madagascar 5 5105 EN Agriterra Supply of good, affordable bean seeds and silo for storage improved profit

YES

140 A shared job Madagascar 5 5105 EN Agriterra Training in modern rice cultivating techniques, improved production of 50% of the group

Partly (minimal explanation of

personal consequences)

141 Women power Madagascar 5 5105 EN Agriterra Self-sufficient and independent rural that earn their own money with poultry

Yes

142 Agro-évolution Tanzania 7 5387 FR SCC Trainings learned farmers how to modernize and improve their farm business

Yes

143 La gestion des greniers Burkina Faso 6 5121 FR Afdi Trainings learned farmers how to handle their harvest, use storehouse etc..

Partly (story is more a description of the project)

Stories 2010 Title Country WA Project

nr. Language Agri-agency Quintessence Useful for

Impact statements?

144 Maak kennis met vier Tanzaniaanse topvrouwen

Tanzania 17 5522 NL Agriterra Life of 4 women improved because of membership of organisations

Partly (examples are too general)



Language Agri-agency Quintessence Useful for Impact statements?

145 Bebeng, Jimmy and Rey: enjoying and earning through biofarming

Philippines 10 4865 EN Agriterra Introduction of bio compost improved yields and bio compost sells good

YES

146 Save money thanks to safe tea Vietnam 17 5364 EN Agriterra Switch into safe tea techniques increased production more income

YES

147 The power of training India 14 5234 EN Agriterra Training in making household products save money. Awareness training empowerment

YES

148 Together we can make a difference India 17 5277 EN Agriterra More self confidence, more income out of dairy farming thanks to self help group

YES

149 Programme de formation des leaders paysans au Congo

Congo 11 5324 FR NL

Agriterra Leadership trainings improved amongst others professionalization of organisations (Sydip, Coocenki, Fopac, Lofepaco) and projects at community level

YES

150 Now I can manage my own life Nepal 8 5053 EN Agriterra Thanks to SCU, they could loan money to change field to better place, more harvest, regular income

YES

151 Independent earning through mushrooms

India 14 5260 EN Agriterra More employment possibilities for women, their income increased thanks to training. Availability of nutritious, organic food

YES

152 A budding entrepreneur Tanzania 14 5260 EN Agriterra Trainings in agriculture farming techniques, collective farming and marketing techniques increased production and income

YES (125 beneficiaries)

153 Fairtrade honing uit Mexico Mexico 4 5296 NL Agriterra Thanks to exchange and information quality and quantity of honey production improved

YES (844 beneficiaries)

154 Bloeiende rijst ruikt? Benin 11 5265 NL Agriterra Because of exchange and market information, better price for rice farmers

YES

159



155 Nog volop slagen te winnen Benin 11 5265 NL Agriterra More information exchange between farmers, but no consequences mentioned

NO

156 Sophie's boerderij Congo 11 4911 NL Agriterra Use of good inputs (fertilizer, seed) improved production and income

Partly (changes thanks to advice of Agripooler, role of organisation not clear)

157 A solution for every problem Kenya 1 5287 EN Agriterra Training for local groups improved farming and entrepreneurial of small scale farmer

YES

158 Not a nine to five job Kenya 1 5287 EN Agriterra Training for rural women, but no consequences mentioned

NO

159 The future looks bright ahead Vietnam 16 5002 EN Agriterra Trainings in agro-tourism activities and self-development improved income, way of living and self-esteem

YES

160 Hospitality in home stays Vietnam 16 5002 EN Agriterra Trainings in agro-tourism, financial support for beds in home stay. More knowledge, better social status but not more income (too early)

Partly

161 Entrepreneurship key to escape from poverty

Cameroon 14 + 17

5260 EN Agriterra Trainings + credit for starting economic initiatives amongst women improved income + living conditions

Yes (for 40 women)

162 Happily ever after Cameroon 14 5260 EN Agriterra Trainings + credit for starting economic initiatives amongst women improved income + living conditions

Yes

163 Mrs. Ungambi’s metamorphose Cameroon 14 + 17

5260 EN Agriterra Trainings + credit for starting economic initiatives amongst women improved income + living conditions

Yes

164 Hard work, but proud of the results Romania 1 5502 EN Agriterra Access to information thanks to membership

Partly (no changes in her life mentioned)

165 Als theeboer de kost verdienen, dat is de kunst!

Nepal 17 5523 NL EN

Agriterra Training and accompaniment by switch to organic tea production, market in Germany

Yes (60 tea farmers switched to organic)




166 Nederlandse uienkennis essentieel voor Nigerese uienteler

Niger 5 5107 NL EN

Agriterra Onion farmers changed breeding methods after advice of De Groot & Slot and receive seeds of good quality, which improved their production (in quality and quantity)

Yes

167 Small loans for great improvements Nepal 14 5513 EN Agriterra Successful mushroom business dui to micro loan

YES (32 female farmers profited of the loans), but no description of her situation before loans

168 Un paysan connecté raconte Burkina Faso 5 5143 FR Agriterra More and better production, more income and better contracts between producers, unions and trade people (a.o. thanks to PEA’s, joint selling and better market prices)

YES (3177 members of which 642 women profited)

169 Eco tea friendly for environment and farmers’ purse

Nepal 7 5523 EN Agriterra Change into organic tea and vegetables cultivation doubles price

YES

170 Een jaar later India 14 5554 NL Agriterra More confidence, social contacts thanks to women’s wing

Partly (no examples, vague)

171 Groeiende nederzettingen hinderen Palestijnse boeren

Palestina 3 5330 NL Agriterra Support of PFU by organic production and trainings and information useful for farmer.

NO

172 What goes up, must come down Vietnam 6 4932 EN Agriterra Trainings of coop. improved farming skills, contract with seed company guaranteed market and good price. This improved income and living conditions

YES

173 Een geboren onderneemster India 14 5554 NL Agriterra Specific women’s department that offers trainings (social and economic) improved confidence and income

YES

174 Believe in the future Palestina 3 5330 EN Agriterra Trainings improved dairy production and growing techniques, but no real

??

161



improvements 175 Fight for your right Palestina 3 5330 EN Agriterra Even non-members profit from

lobby activities of PFU (land reclamation and water supply)

YES

176 Achter de garnaal vissen Mexico 14 5338 NL Agriterra Higher self-esteem, more independency for women thanks to projects of AMMOR

YES

177 Marching for land and health Philippines 17 5519 EN Agriterra 2 factors: march for land let to land rights and food project to more diversified food production better health, more income

YES

178 Boeren in de Jordaanvallei Palestina 3 5330 NL Agriterra Better sale opportunities and seeds. Also more knowledge thanks to PFU

YES

179 Flinke voorraad graan dankzij Groningse kerken

Niger 17 5240 NL Agriterra Gift from Dutch churches is used to buy 6000 kg of grain for members of grain

NO

180 Fier de l’oignon Niger 5 5107 NL Agriterra Better seed (quality) and advice, techniques of Dutch onion specialist improved onion production of farmers and income

YES (for about 2.600 farmers)

181 Volledig vrouwelijke zuivelcoöperatie in de lift

India 17 5277 NL Agriterra Organisation enables loans for buying stock, vaccination, KI, feed etc. and started a dairy coop. This lead to more and better quality of milk and better price

YES

182 Ananas zorgt voor zeker inkomen Uganda 10 5258 NL Agriterra Study travels, demonstration fields, better seed, marketing improved quality and quantity of pineapple production.

YES

183 Innovation in tea plantation China 5 5269 EN Agriterra Director of coop explains some things that the coop is doing, but no testimonies of members to confirm this

NO

184 Tomatentelers willen puree Burundi 5 5225 NL Agriterra Plans for processing tomatoes can lead to other processing projects

NO

185 Weighing of coffee goes digital Kenya 15 5096 EN Agriterra Farmers will benefit from digital No (not yet)




weighing (cost less time, gives more profit)

186 Aardappeldagen leerzaam en winstgevend

Congo 11 4911 NL Agriterra Farmer learned new techniques during potato-days and got good quality seed-potatoes which improved his production

Yes (at least applicable on 1 person)

* Also in the overview of 2008

163

Annex 9 Evaluations by year and agri-agency

2007 AFDI • Evaluation finale externe du projet « Renforcement des capacités organisationnelles des organisations

professionnelles paysannes au Bénin et accompagnement de leurs initiatives de développement pour 2 filières (élevage et ananas export) » Mathieu Briard (septembre 2007) UE / PVD 09/2004-12/2007, Afdi – UPS, Bénin.

AgriCord • Wennink, B., S. Nederlof and W. Heemskerk (2007). Improving support to producers’ organizations.

Lessons learned from experiences by AgriCord members and donors for the Farmers Fighting Poverty Programme. KIT/DEV, Amsterdam.

Agriterra • (Kenya) KENFAP micro-projects: Evaluation of institutional set-up and project implementation, H. de

Vries and J. Levelink • (Kenya) Evaluation of the KENFAP project “Transition Plan”, E. Lassche and B. Hesterman • (Benin) Rapport de la mission d’évaluation externe de la FUPRO, A. Tahirou and J.R. Ndjadi • (Indonesia) The HPSP Programme Evaluation, P. Lyssens and P. Iskandar • (Peru) Evaluación de Proyecto JNC/Agriterra, J.G. Vidal Acuña and P. Rombouts FERT • (Madagascar) – Evaluation à mi-parcours du Projet de « Soutien au renforcement de la structuration

professionnelle et à la réduction de la vulnérabilité des agriculteurs dans les provinces de Fianarantsoa et Toliara », Institutions & Développement – Serge Béné

2008 AFDI • Evaluation finale externe du projet « Des organisations paysannes au Burkina Faso renforcent leurs

stratégies de sécurité alimentaire par le développement des filières maraîchage et niébé » Valentin Beauval et Eustache Wankpo (mars 2008) UE / PSA - 2004-2007, Afdi – FEPAB, Burkina Faso

• Auto évaluation accompagnée du projet « Renforcement des capacités organisationnelles des organisations professionnelles paysannes au Bénin et accompagnement de leurs initiatives de développement pour 2 filières (élevage et ananas export) » ICI, Alexis Kaboré (janvier 2008) UE / PVD 09/2004-12/2007, Afdi – Anoper, Bénin

AgriCord • Wennink, B., W. Heemskerk and S. Nederlof (2008). Improving development practices: the producer’s

perspective. Farmers Fighting Poverty – Producer Organizations support Programme. KIT/DEV, Amsterdam

• AgriCord M&E team: Impact on living conditions of farmers through support to farmers’ organisations Agriterra • L'évaluation du projet 'Amélioration de vie des pasteurs et agropasteurs' (de l’Association pour la

Redynamisation de l’Elevage au Niger - AREN). By Amza Tahirou and Achille Ouedrago. • (Senegal) Évaluation externe du programme « oser et croire » 2007-2008 et de l’organisation interne

de l’Union des Producteurs Privés/Union des Femmes (Île à Morphil). By Fatou Bocoum and Gino Pelletier

• FONGS/FAIR (Senegal) Une appréciation de l'impact du programme au niveau des bénéficiaires finaux et les mutuelles. By Gea Helms.

• (Nicaragua) Evaluación del proyecto UNAG-Chontales ‘Fortaleciendo los afiliados de UNAG-Chontales - Fase II’. By Jan Smid and Jorge Acosta Soto

• Improvement of Services to Farmers in Thailand (SorKorPor). By Rien Geuze and Sara Filius • (Viet Nam) Improving farmer's capacity of producing safe and organic tea in communes of Thai Nguyen

province, implemented by Thai Nguyen Farmers' Union. By Huynh Lê Tâm, Tong Duc Long, Tang Van Khánh.

SCC • 2008 Annual Progress Report: Eastern Africa Evaluations and Studies. (3 cases, one of them on EAFF) • 2008 Annual Progress Report: Southern Africa Evaluations and Studies. (8 cases, one of them the joint

Agriterra-SCC mapping in Mozambique) • 2008 Annual Progress Report: Latin America Evaluations and Studies. (6 cases, among others on

Central America and on Bolivia) • 2008 Annual Progress Report: Eastern Europe Evaluations and Studies. (5 cases, two of them on

Ukraine)


TRIAS • Programme Trias – DGCD 2003-2007 End Evaluation. Gerda Heyde, Kristien De Boodt, Geert Phlix (ACE

Europe). • Improved market conditions, quality labeling, cooperative management for 1300 small organic coffee

producers (APODIP, Guatemala) . TRIAS. • CCA as active role player in the local economic development of Nonualcos (El Salvador). TRIAS • Towards a strong rural movement, AMPRO (Asociación de Microempresarios y Productores Agrícolas del

Occidente de Honduras). TRIAS 2009 AFDI • Serge Béné - Bourbon Madagascar (août 2009) Evaluation finale externe du projet « Développement

des filières riz, manioc et légumineuses par le renforcement des capacités techniques, économiques et organisationnelles des producteurs de la région sud de Madagascar » UE / PSA - 12/2005-08/2009, Afdi – Madagascar

AgriCord • AgriCord M&E team: Impact on living conditions of farmers through support to farmers’ organisations Agriterra • (Burkina Faso) RAPPORT D’EVALUATION DES PROJETS 5210, 5232, 5118 DE LA FEPA-B, FINANCES PAR

AGRITERRA ET AFDI. BY Achille OUEDRAOGO, Tiburce KOUTON and Joachim TROLARD • (Peru) Informe de evaluación experimental de dos proyectos de la CNA. By Ninoska González and Cees

van Rij (Agriterra), and Jorge Acosta Soto (fieldwork) • (Philippines) Report on the evaluation of the projects ‘Organic farming network’ and ‘Organic rice

production’. By Dan Songco et. al., PinoyMe Inc., Manila. . • Case studies of SNV-Agriterra-APF collaboration

1. SNV-Agriterra collaboration in Ethiopia. By Roldan Muradian and Carlo Kuepers. 2. Starting a pineapple business in Uganda. By Mascha Middelbeek and Aldo Hope. 3. Support to smallholder tea farmers in Nepal. By Bertken de Leede and Ujjwal Pokharel. 4. Successful lobbying by and for farmers’ organisations in Benin. By Hans Meenink and Géke Appeldoorn

• AgriCord M&E team: Impact on living conditions of farmers through support to farmers’ organisations in 2008

FERT • (Tanzanie) - Final External Evaluation of the Support Rural Market Project (2007-2009), Match Makers

Associates Ltd SCC • 2009 Annual Progress Report: Southern Africa Evaluations and Studies. (5 cases) • 2009 Annual Progress Report: Eastern Africa Evaluations and Studies. (12 cases, many of them on

SACCO’s) • 2009 Annual Progress Report: Latin America Evaluations and Studies. (9 cases, many of which on

Central America and on Bolivia) • 2009 Annual Progress Report: EuroAsia Evaluations and Studies. (2 cases in Eastern Europe and 6 in

Asia) 2010 AFDI • Association Haona Soa (mai 2010) Evaluation finale externe du projet « Développement des filières

céréales et légumes secs par le renforcement des capacités techniques, économiques et organisationnelles des producteurs de la région du sud-ouest de Madagascar » UE / PRONUMAD, Afdi – MdP, Madagascar

• MADE Sarl et Luc Digonnet (juillet 2010) Evaluation finale externe du projet « Mise en place de Centres de services agricoles » UE/CSA - 2008-2009, Afdi, Madagascar

• Serge Béné - Bourbon Madagascar (septembre 2010) Evaluation finale externe du projet « Améliorer le revenu des producteurs de cacao, vanille, poivre et café par une meilleure valorisation et commercialisation de ces productions sur le marché local et le marché international » UE/Stabex - 10/2008 - 12/2010, Afdi – Adaps, Madagascar

• ICI et Didier Burgun (décembre 2010) Evaluation finale externe du projet « A Gao, Ségou, Koulikoro et Sikasso, des associations d’organisations paysannes consolident leurs actions économiques et leur stratégie de développement » UE / PVD - 2007/2010, Afdi – AOPP, Mali

• Luc Digonnet (décembre 2010) Evaluation finale externe du projet « Augmenter durablement et mieux utiliser les productions vivrières pour contribuer à une réduction de la vulnérabilité alimentaire des ménages dans la région du Logone Oriental » UE / PSA - 09/2007-12/2010, Afdi – Atader, Tchad

165

AgriCord • Mid Term Performance Audit, Farmers Fighting Poverty. Thomas Lewinsky, MDF (Ede) • Farmers Fighting Poverty Programme 2007-2010. Mid Term performance Audit Report. BDO, Arnhem. • Nederlof, S. en B. Wennink (2009). Empowering producer organizations for farmer-led economic and

agri-business development A Desk Study for the “Farmers Fighting Poverty: Producers' Organizations Support Programme”. KIT/DEV, Amsterdam.

• AgriCord M&E team: Impact on living conditions of farmers through support to farmers’ organisations in 2009

Agriterra • Evaluation of Agriterra’s support to Capacity Development; Evidence-based case studies. Herman

Snelder et al., MDF, June 2010. Based on three case studies: 1. Evaluation of Dutch support to capacity development: Evidence-based case studies. Rapport sur

Sydip, Congo DR. BY Christoph Nzalamingi, Herman Snelder. RDC/Ede, April, 2010 2. Mviwata - Images of Capacity Development. Thomas Lewinsky (MDF), Ede, 2010 3. Evaluation of Dutch support to capacity development: Evidence-based case studies. Rapport sur

Fekritama, Madagascar. By : Victorien Randriamahonina, Peter Hofs, Herman Snelder. Madagascar/Ede, April, 2010

• LE ROPPA, HUIT ANS APRES SA CREATION. Au-delà de la représentation et du plaidoyer, les efforts de construction d’un mouvement paysan fort en Afrique de l’Ouest. By Frans van Hoof

• Local entrepreneurship, agribusiness cluster formation and the development of competitive value chains. Evaluation of the Strategic Alliance for Agricultural Development in Africa (SAADA program) 2006-2009. Fons de Zeeuw et al. (Berenschot) (also available in French)

• MARKET-BASED AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT THROUGH FARMERS’ COOPERATIVE BUSINESS PROGRAMME (SCC) 2007/08–2010/11. By J. Erikson, HJP International

• Evaluation finale de la mise en oeuvre du projet PRONUMAD dans le sud-oest de Madagascar. AFDI, 2010.

• Evaluation of farmer-led tourism by VNFU/Colecto in Vietnam. By Nicole van Hoof MSc (ZLTO) and Truong Nam Thang (OSC Travel Co Ltd., Vietnam).

• RAPPORT D’EVALUATION: PROJET DE MISE EN PLACE DES CENTRES DE SERVICE AGRICOLE AU MADAGASCAR par FERT et AFDI. Cabinet MADE Sarl. (Part 2: REGARDS PAYSANS SUR LES CSA. By Luc DIGONNET)

• Kenya: Evaluation of Coopworks and planning way forward. By Richard van de Vegt and Francis Munane.

• Case studies of SNV-Agriterra-APF collaboration. 1. Laying the Foundation for a Market Based Biogas Sector In Kenya. By Jechoniah Kitala and Tito Arunga 2. Reorganizing UOSPA for reviving the oilseed sector in Northern Uganda. By Mascha Middelbeek, Bernard Conilh de Beyssac, Marieke van Schie and Ray Agong. 3. AREN (Niger): Synergie/complémentarité dans l’action pour un meilleur impact. By Saratou Malam Goni and Marielle Schreurs. 4. Support to Cooperative Development in Bhutan – Empowering Small Land Holders. By Binai Lama, SNV Bhutan and Dr Udyog Subedi, Druk Rudevs Consults, LCB for SNV Bhutan 5. Preparing CFAP farmers for market engagement. By Nico Janssen (SNV) and Jeannette van Rijsoort (Agriterra) 6. Vietnam National Farmers Union (VNFU) and Quang Tri Cooperative Alliance (QTCA). By Jeannette van Rijsoort (Agriterra) 7. Joint efforts in the Balkan: a short life. By Nellie van der Pasch (Agriterra)

• Auto-Evaluation Report: case study analysis of the “Partners in Support to Producer Organisations” Corporate Partnership Agriterra, SNV & Agri-ProFocus. By Hans Meenink (SNV), May 2011

• Corporate Partnership Agriterra, SNV & Agri-ProFocus: “Partners in Support to Producer Organisations”. End Report and Auto-Evaluation. By the Coordinating Committee: Hans Meenink – SNV, Nellie van der Pasch – Agriterra and Roel Snelder – Agri-ProFocus, June 2011.

• Food Facility Project in the Philippines. Results-Oriented Monitoring On behalf of the EC Delegation, by Gabrielle Smith (March 2011)

• Evaluation agrotourism initiatives, Agriterra 2007-2010. Mascha Middelbeek, June, 2011 FERT • (Madagascar) – Evaluation à mi parcours du Projet d’Appui au Renforcement de Capacités (PARC) des

éleveurs laitiers de ROVA, SCC – Jan Erikson • (Tanzanie) – Report on the interim review on FERT/USAWA project, FSDT (Financial Sector Deepening

Trust) • (Burkina Faso) - Evaluation à mi-parcours du projet de développement de la filière niébé dans la

province du Sanmatenga (juil.08-juin11), Expertise pour le Développement du Sahel (EDS) • (Madagascar) – La formation des futurs responsables agricoles : capitalisation des acquis de Formagri,

FERT en partenariat avec Afdi et Formagri • (Madagascar) – Evaluation externe du projet « Le CEFFEL pour accompagner la structuration et

l’organisation de la filière fruits et légumes » et du « Projet de « Soutien au renforcement de la structuration professionnelle et à la réduction de la vulnérabilité des agriculteurs dans les provinces de


Fianarantsoa et Toliara » dans le cadre de l’évaluation ExPost des projets ONG cofinancés par l’AFD à Madagascar, COTA

TRIAS • “Linking-up: local economic development in a global world” 2008-2013. A mid-term reflection report.

TRIAS Ghana. • Rapport de la reflexion mi-parcours du « programme d'appui au développement économique local dans

les territoires de lukula et tshela » PADELT et « programme de renforcement des institutions locales de microfinance à Kinshasa ». TRIAS RDC.

• Midterm Reflection Trias Andes’ program 2008-2010. TRIAS Andes. • Mid-Term Reflection DGDC program TANZANIA. Reflections of TRIAS Regional Office staff and TRIAS

Partner Organisations. Paul Bottelberge. TRIAS Tanzania. • Mid-term Reflection Trias Southeast Asia. Local Economic Development program in Antique, Camarines

Sur and metropolitan Manila 2008-2010. TRIAS Southeast Asia. • Reflexão meio termo. Programa: Cooperativismo de Interação solidário combatível. TRIAS Brasil. • Informe Reflexión de Medio Término (RMT) nivel Centroamérica. TRIAS Central America. • Rapport de réflexion mi-parcours du programme PADEL(F)I. TRIAS Guinee. • Mid Term Reflection Report. Trias Uganda. • Mid Term Review Trias-DGOS program 2008-2011. Consolidation at the global level. Hannelore

Beerlandt. SCC • 2010 Annual Progress Report: Southern Africa Evaluations and Studies. (4 cases, among which one on

Malawi) • 2010 Annual Progress Report: Eastern Africa Evaluations and Studies. (6 cases, three of which on

Uganda) • 2010 Annual Progress Report: Latin America Evaluations and Studies. (20 cases, many of which on

Central America and on Bolivia) • Market Based Agricultural Development through Farmers’ Cooperative Business. Quality Assurance &

Control. Mission report Burkina Faso & Benin. Magnus Persson and Ngolia Kimanzu, 26 November 2010.

167

Annex 10 Overview of agri-agencies and associated members of AgriCord

Member agri-agencies by 2010 Afdi (Agriculteurs Français et Développement International), France Créée en 1975 par les Organisations professionnelles agricoles (l’APCA, Assemblée permanente des chambres d’agriculture, la CNMCCA, Caisse nationale de la mutualité, du crédit et de la

coopération agricole, la FNSEA, Fédération nationale des syndicats d’exploitants agricoles , les JA, Jeunes Agriculteurs), Afdi regroupe l’ensemble du monde agricole français autour d’une démarche : “ le partenariat entre organisations professionnelles agricoles du Nord et du Sud : Renforcer les agricultures familiales pour lutter contre la pauvreté.” En fondant le partenariat sur l’identité commune du métier, la réciprocité et la connaissance entre partenaires, l’axe central de l’action d’Afdi repose sur le soutien aux organisations paysannes. Afdi-Nationale, 11 rue de la Baume, 75008 Paris, France Tél: 0033 (0)1 45 62 25 54 Fax: 0033 (0)1 42 89 58 16 Email : [email protected] www.afdi-opa.org

Agriterra, The Netherlands Agriterra was founded in 1997 by the Dutch rural people's organisations: LTO Noord, ZLTO and LLTB (united in LTO Nederland, the Dutch Federation of Agriculture and Horticulture), the Dutch Foundation of Cooperating Women's Organisations (SSVO), the National Cooperative Council for Agriculture and Horticulture (NCR), the Dutch Agricultural Youth Organisation (NAJK). These organisations are

represented in the Board and the advisory council of Agriterra. Agriterra’s office is based in Arnhem. At the end of 2010 its personnel consists of 39 persons. Agriterra believes that people who live and work in rural areas can play a crucial role in solving the problems of hunger and poverty by organising themselves in strong en representative producers’ organisations. These organisations are indispensable for the promotion of democracy, a better distribution of income and the economic development of a country. They are necessary to make an important contribution to achieving the Millennium Development Goals. Agriterra supports them in reaching this goal by promoting, facilitating and supporting lasting cooperation linkages between rural people's organisations in the Netherlands and in developing countries. Agriterra cooperates with rural people's organisations in Africa, Asia, Latin America and Central and Eastern Europe. Agriterra, Willemsplein 42, NL-6811 KD Arnhem, The Netherlands Phone: 0031 26 44 55 445 Fax: 0031 26 44 55 978 Email: [email protected] www.agriterra.org


CSA (Collectif Stratégies Alimentaires), Belgique Le CSA a été créé en 1985. Il veut promouvoir l’agriculture durable et la sécurité alimentaire par le renforcement des organisations paysannes et la promotion de la souveraineté alimentaire dans les différentes régions du monde. Le CSA est l'agri-agence de la Fédération Wallonne de l'Agriculture (FWA). Les actions du CSA

visent à réorienter, en ce sens, les politiques agricoles et commerciales et à renforcer les associations paysannes, identifiées comme moteurs d’une agriculture durable au travers la viabilité de l’agriculture familiale. Le renforcement des organisations paysannes revêt une importance capitale pour le développement des pays pauvres. Les organisations paysannes assurent un rôle de représentation politique et professionnelle, interviennent dans le système de production et sont actives dans le domaine social (caisses mutuelles, solidarités...). Mais leur structuration, leurs ressources (humaines et autres) et leur reconnaissance externe demeurent insuffisantes. Le CSA table aussi sur la mise en place de solidarités entre acteurs concernés par l’agriculture et l’alimentation, en particulier entre producteurs agricoles familiaux au Nord et au Sud. Cette solidarité passe par une reconnaissance de la diversité des situations et une compréhension des enjeux communs. CSA, Collectif Stratégies Alimentaires, Boulevard Léopold II 184-D, B-1080 Bruxelles, Belgique Tél: 0032 (0)2 412 06 60 Fax: 0032 (0)2 412 06 66 Email: [email protected] www.csa-be.org

FERT, France Agri-Agence partenaire du Groupe "Céréaliers de France" (AGPB, AGPM, ARVALIS, UNIGRAINS) FERT est une association de coopération internationale créée en 1981 à l’initiative de diverses personnalités et de responsables d’organisations professionnelles céréalières préoccupés par les

problèmes agro-alimentaires des pays en développement. FERT accompagne les agriculteurs dans la création de groupements de producteurs, coopératives, caisses de crédit agricole, centres de formation leur permettant d'accéder durablement à des services de qualité pour apporter des solutions aux problèmes qu'ils rencontrent dans l'exercice de leur métier et la défense de leurs intérêts. FERT conduit dans treize pays d’Amérique latine, Afrique subsaharienne, Bassin méditerranéen, Océan Indien, Europe centrale et orientale, des opérations de terrain, à caractère démonstratif, en mobilisant les professionnels français dans une démarche de solidarité, pour partager leur longue expérience d'engagement professionnel et de gestion de leurs organisations. FERT intervient dans les domaines suivants : • Services aux agriculteurs : information, formation, conseil • Financement de l’agriculture : création de systèmes d’épargne et de crédit agricole

mutuels • Approvisionnement en intrants et commercialisation des produits agricoles • Organisation de filières : création de marchés, établissement de réglementations et

politiques de qualité • Représentation professionnelle des agriculteurs : représentation et négociation

auprès des pouvoirs publics et autres acteurs de l’environnement économique et social

169

FERT, 5 rue Joseph et Marie Hackin, 75116 Paris, France Tél: 0033 (0)1 44 31 16 70 Fax: 0033 (0)1 44 31 16 74 Email : [email protected] www.fert.fr

SCC (Swedish Cooperative Centre), Sweden The Swedish Cooperative Centre (SCC) is a non-governmental and non-profit organisation for the provision of support to self-help development initiatives – cooperatives, farmers´ associations and informal groups - in developing countries. Our Swedish name is Kooperation Utan Gränser (Without Boundaries). It originates from

the first fund raising campaign in 1958 - by initiative of the Swedish cooperatives which led to the establishment of the SCC as a development aid organisation. The founders and present member organisations of the SCC are national federations representing all major cooperatives in Sweden and the sectors where cooperatives play a central role in Swedish society and economy. LRF, the Federation of Swedish Farmers, is an active member and Board member of SCC. Kooperation Utan Gränser /Swedish Cooperative Centre SE-105 33 Stockholm, Sweden , (visiting address: Franzéngatan 6) Phone: 0046 (0)8 120 371 00 Fax: 0046 (0)8 657 85 15 Email: [email protected] www.utangranser.se

Trias, Belgium In 2007 AgriCord accepted membership of Trias as the agri-agency of Boerenbond, the Farmers association in Flanders. Trias strengthens the solidarity between farmers and entrepreneurs and their organisations living in developed and developing countries. Trias cooperates with six Belgian Dutch speaking movements that have a sum total of 345.000 members. These organisations are KLJ (rural youth), KVLV (rural women) and Landelijke Gilden (rural families), markant (entrepreneurial

women), Neos (retired entrepreneurs) and UNIZO (entrepreneurs). The main themes of Trias are microfinance, business development services, movement building and access to markets and value chain development. Trias works in 12 countries and has 9 regional offices, three in Latin America, five in Africa and one in Asia. Trias has a staff of 118 people and a turnover of over 10 million euro. TRIAS, Wetstraat 89, B-1040 Brussels, Belgium Phone: 0032 (0)2 513 75 34 Fax: 0032 (0)2 512 05 02 Email: [email protected] www.triasngo.be


UPA Développement international (UPA DI), Canada Depuis sa création en 1993, UPA DI établit des partenariats avec des organisations paysannes démocratiques d’Afrique, d’Amérique Latine et d’Asie afin de renforcer leur capacité à agir collectivement pour le développement de l’agriculture

familiale et le mieux-être des paysannes et paysans. Pour ce faire, elle s’appuie sur l'expérience de l'Union des producteurs agricoles (UPA), riche de plus de 85 ans d'histoire. Cet engagement résulte d’une prise de conscience que, dans un contexte de libéralisation des échanges commerciaux, le développement durable de l’agriculture doit nécessairement passer par la mondialisation des solidarités. Les domaines d’intervention d’UPA DI sont les suivants : • Le renforcement des capacités organisationnelles des regroupements paysans. • Le développement de la production et la mise en place de services collectifs dont

les systèmes collectifs de mise en marché. • L’appui à l’approche filière. • Le soutien à l’élaboration et la mise en place de politiques agricoles propices au

développement de l’agriculture. • Le rapprochement des producteurs du Nord et du Sud. L’approche d’UPA DI se distingue par l’accent mis sur la formation et l’accompagnement afin d’appuyer les organisations paysannes dans un processus continu d’action-réflexion favorisant à long terme le développement de leurs capacités et de leur autonomie organisationnelle. L'Union des producteurs agricoles 555, boul. Roland-Therrien, bureau 020, Longueuil (Québec) J4H 4E7, Canada Tél: 00450 679-0530 Fax: 00450 463-5202 Email: [email protected] www.upa.qc.ca Associated farmers’ organisations by 2010

CAP, Confederação dos Agricultores de Portugal/Portugese farmers confederation, Portugal The Confederation of Farmers of Portugal (CAP) was founded on November 24, 1975, born of a spontaneous movement by Portuguese farmers.

Today, CAP is emerging as social and professional agricultural organization and brings together more than 300 organizations around the country, which translate into federations, Wineries, Regional Associations, corresponding to the main agricultural areas of Portugal, by associations specialized technical sector and Cooperatives. With all its affiliated maintains permanent contacts in the form of regional meetings, national or plenary, after hearing the problems and needs of national agriculture and forwarding the same to technical analysis, specialized studies or strategies to adopt. Defend the interests of Portuguese agriculture in the country and abroad, always safeguarding the economic component of the activity are the aims of the Confederation of Farmers of Portugal in the defense of a dignified and quality life for all farmers who wish to continue their activity.

171

At the international level CAP is represented in different Committees : COPA, USSE (Forest Owners' Union of Southern Europe), the CEPF (Confederation of European Forest Owners), the EESC (European Economic and Social Committee) and the European Commission through its Advisory Groups. Of the various specialized technical services to farmers provided by CAP stands out training through three Agricultural Training Centers, and direct aid to farms through a national network of fifteen Rural Information Centres. The headquarters of the Confederation of Farmers of Portugal is in Lisbon, but both its affiliated regional and specialized as the Rural Information Centres to ensure decentralization and distribution of services, both in the continent and the archipelagoes of Madeira and the Azores. CAP - Confederação dos Agricultores de Portugal: Av. do Colégio, Lote 1786, 1549 – 012 Lisboa, Portugal ( ? or R. Master Lima de Freitas, n º 1, 1549-012 Lisboa, Portugal) Phone: +351 21 710 00 00 Fax: +351 21 716 61 23 Email: [email protected] CAP - Brussels office: Rue Sainte Gertrude 15, 1040 Bruxelles, Belgium Phone: +32 (0)2 736 88 28 Email [email protected] http://www.cap.pt

CIA, Confederazione Italiana Agricoltori, Italy The Confederazione Italiana Agricoltori, CIA, is a professional farmers' organisation, independent from political parties and from government. CIA represents farmers' interests in Italy, in Europe and at the

international level. The Confederation is represented in institutes and organisations that work in the field of food security, environmental issues, and all social, technical and economic aspects of farming in Italy. CIA organizes advisory services to farmers, and also deals with innovation, biological farming, agro-tourism. CIA has special programs aimed at senior or young farmers, and at women farmers. CIA has representatives in the major international, national, regional and provincial organisms. The Confederation has been founded in the December of 1977. CIA is one of the largest European agricultural professional organisations. CIA counts more than 900.000 members, of which approximately 300.000 are agricultural entrepreneurs. CIA -Confederazione Italiana Agricoltori : Via Mariano Fortuny Mariano, 20, 00196 Rome, Italy Phone: 0039 (0)6 32687306, Fax: 0039 (0)6 32687308, Email: [email protected] CIA - Brussels office: Rue Philippe Le Bon 46, 1000 Bruxelles, Belgium Phone: 0032 (0)2 230 20 30 Fax: 0032 (0)2 280 03 33 Email: [email protected] www.cia.it


MTK, Finland The Central Union of Agricultural Producers and Forest Owners (MTK) represents an industry whose livelihood is based on renewable natural resources and their use in a sustainable and economical way. MTK takes care of various interests and living conditions of farmers, forest owners, rural entrepreneurs and rural people.

MTK has 156 .000 members who are able to get in touch with a local producer association in nearly every town and municipality. Its sister organisation, SLC, has 14.000 members and operates in Swedish-speaking areas. The member associations of both organisations work together with consumers to promote basic production and agriculture in the interests of Finnish food and employment. MTK, its Swedish-speaking sister organisation SLC and Pellervo (the Confederation of Finnish Cooperatives) have a joint representation in Brussels. MTK, Simonkatu 6 / PO.Box 510, 00100 Helsinki, Finland Phone: 00358 20 4131 MTK Brussel Office, Rue de Tréves 61, B-1040 Brussels, Belgium Phone: 0032 (0)2 2854 810 Fax: 0032 (0)2 2854 819 www.mtk.fi

UPA, Unión de Pequeños Agricultores y Ganaderos, Spain As a professional farmers organisation, UPA represents and defends the interests of more than 80.000 small and medium scale family farmers and cattle breeders in Spain. UPA is part of the Economic and Social Council (CES) of Spain, where it participates and represents farmers in national and regional forums. UPA is member of COPA, is represented in the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC), and is member of the International Federation of Agricultural Producers (IFAP).

UPA has specific divisions and programmes for young farmers (UPA-Rural Youth) and women farmers (FADEMUR). The union is a reference agricultural organisation in Spain, and established working relations with all relevant Ministries: Environment, agriculture and fishing, Economy, Property, Work and Social Security, etc... At sectoral level, UPA participates in multi-industry organisations and platforms. UPA is involved in transnational studies and projects, together with universities and agrarian organisations of Portugal, Italy and France. UPA has an office in Brussels, for follow-up of the EU common agricultural policy (Política Agraria Común, PAC) as well as for a better representation of the Spanish farmers in the Consultative Committees of the EU. UPA, Unión de Pequeños Agricultores y Ganaderos. Agustín de Betancourt, 17. 3º, 28003 Madrid (España) Phone: 0034 91 554 18 70 Fax: 0034 91 554 26 21 Email: [email protected] UPA, Brussels office: 11 BP 5-2, Rue de Gétry, 1000 Bruxelles, belgium Phone: 0032 (0)2 219 18 27

173

Fax: 0032 (0)2 218 38 04 Email: [email protected] www.upa.es

ACODEA Foundation (Development Cooperation Agency of Agriculture) UPA and FADEMUR have promoted ACODEA Foundation (Development Cooperation Agency of Agriculture), which reflects the commitment of UPA

and FADEMUR to help improve living and working conditions of men and women in developing countries . UPA and FADEMUR are aware of the needs and difficulties being faced by them and the producers as developing countries. ACODEA’s intention is to provide knowledge about sustainable production ensuring greater social returns, a better quality of life and improved production efficiency in their marketing. ACODEA Foundation is developing the project "Program of cooperation for sustainable development of agriculture and livestock in Bolivia" is financed by the AECI. ACODEA Foundation is also developing several projects with other Latin American and African countries. http://www.acodea.es

175

Annex 11 Overview of tables and charts

TABLE 1 CHANGES IN LEADING INDICATORS: 2007-2009 ................................................. 8 TABLE 2 MEMBERSHIP GROWTH 2007-2008 ............................................................... 13 TABLE 3 MEMBERSHIP 2008-2009 ......................................................................... 14 TABLE 4 EXPENDITURE PER PARTICIPANT AND LEVEL OF INTERVENTION ................................. 18 TABLE 5 RELATIVE DISTRIBUTION OF EXPENDITURE PER STRATEGY, 2007-2010 ...................... 18 TABLE 6 EVALUATIONS CARRIED OUT BETWEEN 2007 AND 2011 ........................................ 19 TABLE 7 1000+: HOUSEHOLDS, CLUSTERS, GROUPS REACHED .......................................... 26 TABLE 8 NUMBER OF FARMERS’ ORGANISATIONS PER SERVICE PROVIDED AND AGRI-AGENCY ......... 32 TABLE 9 NUMBER OF PERSONS ON MISSION, 2007-2010 ................................................ 33 TABLE 10 REALISATION OF INPUT SNV - AGRITERRA ..................................................... 46 TABLE 11 OVERVIEW OF ON-SITE JUNIOR/SENIOR ADVISORS ............................................ 50 TABLE 12 NUMBER OF PROJECTS AND EXPENDITURE PER CONTINENT 2007-2010 .................... 53 TABLE 13 FUNDING AGRITERRA 2010 ...................................................................... 71 TABLE 14 FUNDING PLANNED AND RAISED IN 2007-2010 ............................................... 72 TABLE 15 PLANNED AND REALISED EXPENDITURES DGIS 2010 ......................................... 73 TABLE 16 CLAIMED EXPENSES AND BALANCE DGIS ....................................................... 73 TABLE 17 DEPENDENCE ON DGIS FUNDING OF AGRI-AGENCIES INVOLVEMENT IN FFP ............... 74 TABLE 18 PLANNED AND REALISED EXPENDITURE 2007-2010 .......................................... 74 TABLE 19 TOTAL EXPENDITURES (PLANNING / REALISATION) ............................................ 103 CHART 1 MEMBERSHIP GROWTH PROFILED ORGANISATIONS .............................................. 13 CHART 2 OVERVIEW OF OUTREACH 2007-2010 ........................................................... 17 CHART 3 TYPE OF ADVISORS ON MISSIONS (2007-2010) ............................................... 33 CHART 4 DESTINATION OF PARTICIPANTS PER REGION (2007-2010) .................................. 35